COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Meaning relations between responses in an epidemiological study and twitter messages.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a concerning public health issue, further amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social media is an important player in this context, promoting the dissemination of both information and misinformation. Qualitative studies analyzing the meaning of social media contents in correlation with epidemiological data are scarce, and could aid our understanding of social media's impact on vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: In this study, we identified open-ended responses on reasons to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine collected in an epidemiologic study, and analyzed meaning relations with Twitter posts according to theme categories using a qualitative approach. RESULTS: Among responses to open-ended questions on motivations for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, we identified and analyzed five theme categories: 1. individuality; 2. fear of adverse events/distrust in vaccine safety; 3. political ideologies/aversion to recommendations issued by the State; 4. skepticism about vaccine efficacy; and 5. refusal of non-natural products or interventions. We observed a close correspondence between open-ended responses in the epidemiological study and Twitter posts in all 5 theme categories. The highest outreach of Twitter posts was observed for those in the "individuality" and "fear of adverse the events/distrust in vaccine safety" theme categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that social media interactions can perpetuate misinformation and hesitant attitudes about vaccines. Social media algorithms can intensify ideologic isolation, and strategies to promote the dissemination of tailored health information among social media users should be implemented to promote an overall understanding of health, particularly those concerning the collective wellbeing.

Say it right: measuring the impact of different communication strategies on the decision to get vaccinated.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a concerning menace to the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. Effective health communication could promote an overall understanding of the importance, risks, and benefits of vaccination and reduce vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: In this survey, four fictitious newspaper articles addressing an emerging bogus disease and its vaccine were randomly assigned to participants. The first version focused on information about the disease; the second was akin to the first, including a case description and image. The third version focused on vaccine safety/efficacy; the fourth version was like the third, including a case description and image. After reading a single version of the article, participants responded if they would take the vaccine and if they would vaccinate their children. We used chi-squared tests for comparisons and investigated interactions with vaccine-hesitant attitudes. RESULTS: We included 5233 participants between August/2021 and January/2022; 790 were caregivers of a child ≤ 5 years old, and 15% had prior vaccine hesitancy. Although most declared intention to take the vaccine, the percentage was highest among those exposed to the newspaper article focusing on the vaccine safety/efficacy with the case description and picture (91%; 95% confidence interval 89-92%), and lowest among participants exposed to the article focusing on the disease with no case description (84%; 95% confidence interval 82-86%). Similar trends were observed in the intention of offspring vaccination. We found evidence of effect modification by vaccine-hesitant attitudes, with a higher impact of communication focusing on vaccine safety/efficacy compared to that focusing on disease characteristics among hesitant participants. CONCLUSION: Communication strategies focusing on different aspects of the disease-vaccine duet may impact vaccine hesitancy, and storytelling/emotive imagery descriptions may improve risk perception and vaccine uptake. Moreover, the effect of message framing strategies may differ according to previous vaccine hesitant attitudes.

Say it right: measuring the impact of different communication strategies on the decision to get vaccinated

Background Vaccine hesitancy is a concerning menace to the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. Effective health communication could promote an overall understanding of the importance, risks, and benefits of vaccination and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Methods In this survey, four fictitious newspaper articles addressing an emerging bogus disease and its vaccine were randomly assigned to participants. The first version focused on information about the disease; the second was akin to the first, including a case description and image. The third version focused on vaccine safety/efficacy; the fourth version was like the third, including a case description and image. After reading a single version of the article, participants responded if they would take the vaccine and if they would vaccinate their children. We used chi-squared tests for comparisons and investigated interactions with vaccine-hesitant attitudes. Results We included 5233 participants between August/2021 and January/2022; 790 were caregivers of a child ≤ 5 years old, and 15% had prior vaccine hesitancy. Although most declared intention to take the vaccine, the percentage was highest among those exposed to the newspaper article focusing on the vaccine safety/efficacy with the case description and picture (91%; 95% confidence interval 89–92%), and lowest among participants exposed to the article focusing on the disease with no case description (84%; 95% confidence interval 82–86%). Similar trends were observed in the intention of offspring vaccination. We found evidence of effect modification by vaccine-hesitant attitudes, with a higher impact of communication focusing on vaccine safety/efficacy compared to that focusing on disease characteristics among hesitant participants. Conclusion Communication strategies focusing on different aspects of the disease-vaccine duet may impact vaccine hesitancy, and storytelling/emotive imagery descriptions may improve risk perception and vaccine uptake. Moreover, the effect of message framing strategies may differ according to previous vaccine hesitant attitudes.