Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Geoghegan S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7090020 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation.
Geoghegan Sarah S O'Callaghan Kevin P KP Offit Paul A PA
Frontiers in microbiology 20200317
The World Health Organization has named vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. The reasons why people choose not to vaccinate are complex, but lack of confidence in vaccine safety, driven by concerns about adverse events, has been identified as one of the key factors. Healthcare workers, especially those in primary care, remain key influencers on vaccine decisions. It is important, therefore, that they be supported by having easy access to trusted, evidence-bas ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake consistently lags behind that of other adolescent vaccines. In 2017, uptake of a single HPV vaccine dose and HPV vaccine series completion was 66% and 49%, respectively, compared to uptake of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (89%) and quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (85%). Reasons for not vaccinating adolescents again HPV are varied, and in many cases, are rooted in commonly spread myths and misperceptions about the vaccine. In this review, we address five key myths - HPV vaccination is not effective at preventing cancer; Pap smears are sufficient to prevent cervical cancer; HPV vaccination is not safe; HPV vaccination is not needed since most infections are naturally cleared by the immune system; 11-12 years of age is too young to vaccinate. For each myth, we summarize the scientific evidence refuting the myth and provide speaking prompts for healthcare professionals to communicate about HPV vaccination.
| S-EPMC6746482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current study examined various types of misinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccines and their relationships to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Study 1 asked a sample of full-time working professionals in the US (n = 505) about possible misinformation they were exposed to related to the COVID-19 vaccines. Study 2 utilized an online survey to examine U.S. college students' (n = 441) knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, and its associations with vaccine hesitancy and behavioral intention to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Analysis of open-ended responses in Study 1 revealed that 57.6% reported being exposed to conspiratorial misinformation such as COVID-19 vaccines are harmful and dangerous. The results of a structural equation modeling analysis for Study 2 supported our hypotheses predicting a negative association between the knowledge level and vaccine hesitancy and between vaccine hesitancy and behavioral intention. Vaccine hesitancy mediated the relationship between the vaccine knowledge and behavioral intention. Findings across these studies suggest exposure to misinformation and believing it as true could increase vaccine hesitancy and reduce behavioral intention to get vaccinated.
| S-EPMC9366757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID pandemic and affiliated infodemic led to widespread health misinformation, generating confusion and distrust. Physicians must identify and address misinformation, with attention to cultural/health literacy, equity, and autonomy. Most medical students receive training in core communication techniques but are rarely taught how to combat misinformation with patients and lack opportunities for practice in diverse settings.MethodsWe used mixed methods to evaluate the impact of a role-play-based training curriculum on 44 third- and fourth-year medical students' comfort and confidence applying ask-respond-tell-seek solutions (ARTS) and motivational interviewing (MI) to discuss vaccine hesitancy, using COVID-19 as an example. There were three training iterations: prior to volunteering at a community health fair, during a medicine clinical rotation, and during a pediatrics rotation. Pre- and postsession questionnaires were administered. Likert-scale questions assessed comfort and confidence using ARTS and MI. Narrative responses focused on previous experiences with vaccine hesitancy, challenges faced, and session takeaways.ResultsStudents' comfort, confidence with ARTS/MI, and self-reported ability to discuss COVID-19 vaccinations improved as measured by pre- and postsession surveys (p < .05). Qualitatively, students reported increased confidence delivering recommendations in plain language and exploring patients' thought processes behind choices.DiscussionReinforcement of core communications strategies in medical school can positively impact trainees' ability and ease addressing misinformation. We recommend this 45-minute training session to effectively increase medical students' comfort and confidence in discussing COVID-19 vaccines with patients. It can be adapted to any health professions school with an existing communications thread.
| S-EPMC11347693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the USA, vaccine hesitancy continues to represent a significant impediment to the attainment of herd immunity and the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey analysis provides an update for clinical healthcare providers and public health officials regarding current trends in misinformation exposure, as well as common objections to COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey of 600 adults in the state of Florida between June 3 and June 14, 2021. Access to the sample was purchased through an industry-leading market research provider (Prodege MR), and survey respondents were selected using a stratified, quota sampling approach to ensure representativeness. Balanced quotas were determined (by region of the state) for gender, age, race, education, and ethnicity. The survey responses were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics, as well as chi-square testing and a logit regression model.FindingsHigh levels of misinformation exposure were observed among participants, with 73% reporting some exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines in the past 6 months. Exposure to misinformation was directly correlated with vaccine hesitancy. Among those who did not report any exposure to misinformation, 73.8% of respondents were vaccinated. That number fell to 62.9% with exposure to just one misinformation theme and 52.2% for six or more (χ2 = 11.349; φ = 0.138; p ≤ 0.05). Politicization was also found to be a major factor in vaccine hesitancy, with 73.4% of self-identified Democrats being vaccinated, compared to only 58.5% of Republicans and 56.5% of Independents (χ2 = 16.334; φ = 0.165; p ≤ 0.001). Both misinformation exposure and political affiliation were strong predictors of vaccination even after accounting for other demographic predictors.DiscussionThe survey results add to previous research on misinformation and vaccine hesitancy by quantifying exposure to specific misinformation themes and identifying its relationship to vaccine hesitancy. Overcoming these impediments to vaccination will require strategic and targeted messaging on the part of public health professionals, which may be aided by collaboration with political thought leaders. Understanding the volume and nature of misinformation themes the public is exposed to regarding COVID-19 vaccines may aid public health officials in targeting this vaccine messaging to more directly address reasons for vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC8528483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMisinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2).MethodsWe searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2).ResultsOf 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results.ConclusionThis review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.
| S-EPMC9829031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccinations play a critical role in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases. Past research has linked misinformation to increased hesitancy and lower vaccination rates. Gaps remain in our knowledge about the main drivers of vaccine misinformation on social media and effective ways to intervene.ObjectiveOur longitudinal study had two primary objectives: (1) to investigate the patterns of prevalence and contagion of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on Twitter in 2021, and (2) to identify the main spreaders of vaccine misinformation. Given our initial results, we further considered the likely drivers of misinformation and its spread, providing insights for potential interventions.MethodsWe collected almost 300 million English-language tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines using a list of over 80 relevant keywords over a period of 12 months. We then extracted and labeled news articles at the source level based on third-party lists of low-credibility and mainstream news sources, and measured the prevalence of different kinds of information. We also considered suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. We focused our analysis of vaccine misinformation spreaders on verified and automated Twitter accounts.ResultsOur findings showed a relatively low prevalence of low-credibility information compared to the entirety of mainstream news. However, the most popular low-credibility sources had reshare volumes comparable to those of many mainstream sources, and had larger volumes than those of authoritative sources such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Throughout the year, we observed an increasing trend in the prevalence of low-credibility news about vaccines. We also observed a considerable amount of suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. Tweets by a small group of approximately 800 "superspreaders" verified by Twitter accounted for approximately 35% of all reshares of misinformation on an average day, with the top superspreader (@RobertKennedyJr) responsible for over 13% of retweets. Finally, low-credibility news and suspicious YouTube videos were more likely to be shared by automated accounts.ConclusionsThe wide spread of misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter during 2021 shows that there was an audience for this type of content. Our findings are also consistent with the hypothesis that superspreaders are driven by financial incentives that allow them to profit from health misinformation. Despite high-profile cases of deplatformed misinformation superspreaders, our results show that in 2021, a few individuals still played an outsized role in the spread of low-credibility vaccine content. As a result, social media moderation efforts would be better served by focusing on reducing the online visibility of repeat spreaders of harmful content, especially during public health crises.
| S-EPMC9970010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives(1) To create a short motion graphic video to debias women, using evidence from cognitive psychology, of 2 common myths about safety of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants in Jamaica; and (2) to conduct a pilot study to evaluate video effectiveness.Study designWe conducted a series of 3 focus group discussions among target users to inform the development process of the script, story, character, and look of the intervention video. We randomized young, female nonusers of long-acting contraception at risk of pregnancy at a public clinic in Kingston in 2018-2019 to watch either the intervention (n = 113) or control video (n = 112). We used logistical regression to evaluate perceptions of method safety, naturalness, and uptake after 3 months of follow up.ResultsAlmost all (n = 220; 97.8%) participants completed the 3-month interview. More women in the intervention arm perceived IUDs to be safe (59.1%) compared to the control arm (43.6%; p = 0.02). Perceived implant safety increased from enrollment to follow up in the intervention and control arms (10.9 and 2.7 percentage-point increases, respectively); however, the difference between arms at follow up was not statistically significant (p = 0.57). This appeared to be due to arm imbalances at enrollment. Study arms did not differ at follow up in perceived IUD naturalness (p = 0.36) or implant naturalness (p = 0.68).ConclusionsFindings from a pilot study of a video intervention suggest that using debiasing strategies from cognitive psychology has the potential to address misconceptions about contraceptive safety. A larger trial with adequate power is warranted.ImplicationsEvidence from a pilot randomized controlled trial suggested that use of debiasing strategies from cognitive psychology could be effective in correcting women's misconceptions about contraception safety and thus show promise for the design of future contraceptive promotion videos to increase uptake.
| S-EPMC8035256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Twitter, prompted by the rapid spread of alternative narratives, started actively warning users about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. This form of soft moderation comes in two forms: as an interstitial cover before the Tweet is displayed to the user or as a contextual tag displayed below the Tweet. We conducted a 319-participants study with both verified and misleading Tweets covered or tagged with the COVID-19 misinformation warnings to investigate how Twitter users perceive the accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine content on Twitter. The results suggest that the interstitial covers work, but not the contextual tags, in reducing the perceived accuracy of COVID-19 misinformation. Soft moderation is known to create so-called "belief echoes" where the warnings echo back, instead of dispelling, preexisting beliefs about morally-charged topics. We found that such "belief echoes" do exist among Twitter users in relationship to the perceived safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the vaccination hesitancy for themselves and their children. These "belief echoes" manifested as skepticism of adequate COVID-19 immunization particularly among Republicans and Independents as well as female Twitter users. Surprisingly, we found that the belief echoes are strong enough to preclude adult Twitter users to receive the COVID-19 vaccine regardless of their education level.
| S-EPMC8675217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and track trends over time in traditional news media.DesignRetrospective cohort study of a large database of online articles, July 2020-June 2021.SettingEnglish-language articles from 100 news outlets with the greatest reach.Main outcome measuresNumbers and percentages of articles containing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation over the study period. Further analysis by misinformation themes and whether articles included primary misinformation, fact-checking or simply referred to misinformation.Results41 718 (3.2% of all COVID-19 vaccine articles) contained at least one of the vaccine misinformation themes based on the Boolean string developed for this study. The volume of such articles increased beginning in November 2020, but their percentage of all articles remained essentially stable after October 2020. 56.2% contained at least one mention of a safety theme, followed by development, production, and distribution (26.6%), and conspiracies (15.1%). Of 500 articles through January 2021 randomly selected from those identified by the Boolean string, 223 were not relevant, and 277 included either fact-checking (175 articles), refers to misinformation (87 articles) or primary misinformation (15 articles). In eight study weeks, the reach of these 277 articles (defined as visitors to the sites containing the articles) exceeded 250 million people. Fact-checking accounted for 69.6% of all reach for these articles and the number of such articles increased after November 2020. Overall, approximately 0.1% (95% CI 0.05% to 0.16%) of all articles on COVID-19 vaccines in our sample contained primary misinformation.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine misinformation in traditional news media is uncommon but has the capacity to reach large numbers of readers and affect the vaccine conversation. Recent increases in fact-checking may counteract some of the misinformation currently circulating.
| S-EPMC9160593 | biostudies-literature