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

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_AVELINO-SILVA_Say_it_right_measuring_the_impact_of_different_2023.PDF (1.09 MB)
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BMC
Autores
FERREIRA-SILVA, Sofia Natalia
SOARES, Maria Eduarda Muniz
FUJITA, Luiz
MEDEIROS, Tainah
BARBIERI, Carolina Luisa Alves
Citação
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, v.23, n.1, article ID 1162, 11p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
BackgroundVaccine 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionCommunication 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.
Palavras-chave
Vaccines, Vaccination hesitancy, Surveys and questionnaires, Random allocation, Health communication
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/54777
Referências
  1. Albrecht D, 2022, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V22, DOI 10.1186/s12889-021-12432-x
  2. Attwell K, 2015, VACCINE, V33, P6235, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.09.092
  3. Dror AA, 2021, EUR J EPIDEMIOL, V36, P709, DOI 10.1007/s10654-021-00758-0
  4. Dube E, 2020, CAN COMMUN DIS REP
  5. Dube E, 2014, VACCINE, V32, P6649, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.039
  6. Gagneur A, 2018, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V18, DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5724-y
  7. Gardner L, 2020, LANCET INFECT DIS
  8. Glanz JM, 2017, PEDIATRICS, V140, DOI 10.1542/peds.2017-1117
  9. Gowda C, 2013, HUM VACC IMMUNOTHER
  10. Gramacho WG, 2021, VACCINE, V39, P2608, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.080
  11. Greenwood B, 2014, PHILOS T R SOC B, V369, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2013.0433
  12. Harris PA, 2009, J BIOMED INFORM, V42, P377, DOI 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
  13. Hendrix KS, 2014, PEDIATRICS, V134, pE675, DOI 10.1542/peds.2013-4077
  14. Henrikson NB, 2015, PEDIATRICS, V136, P70, DOI 10.1542/peds.2014-3199
  15. Jacobson RM, 2015, MAYO CLIN PROC
  16. Jacobson RM, 2020, HUM VACC IMMUNOTHER, V16, P2131, DOI 10.1080/21645515.2020.1735226
  17. Jarrett C, 2015, VACCINE, V33, P4180, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040
  18. Kumar D, 2021, FAM MED COMMUNITY HE, V9, DOI 10.1136/fmch-2021-001080
  19. Kutasi K, 2022, SCI REP-UK
  20. Larson HJ, 2014, VACCINE, V32, P2150, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081
  21. Lazarus JV, 2022, NAT COMMUN, V13, DOI 10.1038/s41467-022-31441-x
  22. MacDonald NE, 2015, VACCINE, V33, P4161, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036
  23. Nour R, 2019, CUREUS J MED SCIENCE
  24. Nyhan B, 2014, PEDIATRICS, V133, pE835, DOI 10.1542/peds.2013-2365
  25. Olson O, 2020, VACCINES-BASEL, V8, DOI 10.3390/vaccines8040590
  26. Paschoalotto MAC, 2021, REV SAUDE PUBL
  27. Penta MA, 2018, HEALTH COMMUN, V33, P299, DOI 10.1080/10410236.2016.1266574
  28. Phillips DE, 2017, BMC HEALTH SERV RES, V17, DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2626-0
  29. Reddinger JL, 2022, PREV MED REP, V29, DOI 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101903
  30. Robertson DA, 2022, VACCINE
  31. Rodrigues CMC, 2020, FRONT MICROBIOL, V11, DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01526
  32. Sadaf A, 2013, VACCINE, V31, P4293, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.013
  33. Seara-Morais GJ, 2022, MEDRXIV, DOI 10.24.22281482v1
  34. Shen S, 2019, CAN FAM PHYSICIAN
  35. Sudharsanan N, 2022, ELIFE, V11, DOI 10.7554/eLife.78765
  36. Williams SE, 2013, ACAD PEDIATR

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPR
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/38
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/49