Prebunking messaging to inoculate against COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: an effective strategy for public health

Vivion, Maryline; Sidi, E; Betsch, Cornelia; Dionne, Maude; Dubé, Ève; Driedger, S. Michelle; Gagnon, Dominique; Graham, Janice E.; Greyson, Devon; Hamel, Denis; Lewandowsky, Stephan; MacDonald, Noni E.; Malo, Benjamin; Meyer, Samantha B.; Schmid, Philipp; Steenbeek, Audrey; Linden, Sander van der; Verger, Pierre; Witteman, Holly O.; Yesilada, Mushin

doi:10.1080/17538068.2022.2044606

Cited by 31 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While inoculation interventions tend to be brief and are most typically delivered in the form of messaages that present the warning and counterargument, the protective effects of the inoculation can range from weeks to months, depending on the exposure and behavior (Banas & Rains, 2010 ). Inoculation theory has been found effective in preventing beliefs in misinformation, including vaccine-related misinformation (Maertens et al, 2021 ; Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019 ; Vivion et al, 2022 ). For non-specific health misinformation, an intervention could confer resistance to the effect of this type of information by exposing parents to the dangers of ambiguous misinformation and providing examples of what that information looks like and why it is bad.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although social media can be a source of guidance about HPV vaccination for parents, the information may not always be complete or accurate. We conducted a retrospective content analysis to identify content and frequencies of occurrence of disinformation and misinformation about HPV vaccine posted on Twitter between December 15, 2019, through March 31, 2020, among 3876 unique, English language #HPV Tweets, excluding retweets. We found that 24% of Tweets contained disinformation or misinformation, and the remaining 76% contained support/education. The most prevalent categories of disinformation/misinformation were (1) adverse health effects (59%), (2) mandatory vaccination (19%), and (3) inefficacy of the vaccine (14%). Among the adverse health effects Tweets, non-specific harm/injury (51%) and death (23%) were most frequent. Disinformation/misinformation Tweets vs. supportive Tweets had 5.44 (95% CI 5.33–5.56) times the incidence rate of retweet. In conclusion , almost one-quarter of #HPV Tweets contained disinformation or misinformation about the HPV vaccine and these tweets received higher audience engagement including likes and retweets. Implications for vaccine hesitancy are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Derived from the logic of disease inoculation ( 127 ), it involves forewarning people that they will be receiving misinformation, then giving them a small dose of misinformation (the “vaccine”) and refuting it so that they will be better able to resist misinformation when they encounter it in the wild (the “disease”). Data from a field experiment among older adults have found this strategy to be effective for minimizing the impact of disinformation on people’s intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine ( 128 ).…”

Section: What Can We Do About Antiscience Attitudes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?

Philipp-Muller

Lee

Petty

2022

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From vaccination refusal to climate change denial, antiscience views are threatening humanity. When different individuals are provided with the same piece of scientific evidence, why do some accept whereas others dismiss it? Building on various emerging data and models that have explored the psychology of being antiscience, we specify four core bases of key principles driving antiscience attitudes. These principles are grounded in decades of research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and information processing. They apply across diverse domains of antiscience phenomena. Specifically, antiscience attitudes are more likely to emerge when a scientific message comes from sources perceived as lacking credibility; when the recipients embrace the social membership or identity of groups with antiscience attitudes; when the scientific message itself contradicts what recipients consider true, favorable, valuable, or moral; or when there is a mismatch between the delivery of the scientific message and the epistemic style of the recipient. Politics triggers or amplifies many principles across all four bases, making it a particularly potent force in antiscience attitudes. Guided by the key principles, we describe evidence-based counteractive strategies for increasing public acceptance of science.

show abstract

“…The "backfire effect" (ie, factual counterargument entrenches false beliefs) was found when using debunking messages to address misinformation [117,118]. Therefore, pre-debunking message (inoculation message) before public message communication should be piloted [73,119].…”

Section: Cutting Production and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

Zhao¹,

Hu²,

Zhou³

et al. 2023

JMIR Public Health Surveill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic spread even more rapidly than the pandemic itself. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been prevalent worldwide and hindered pandemic exiting strategies. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines is a vital contributor to vaccine hesitancy. However, no evidence systematically summarized COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. Objective This review aims to synthesize the global evidence on misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines, including its prevalence, features, influencing factors, impacts, and solutions for combating misinformation. Methods We performed a systematic review by searching 5 peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). We included original articles that investigated misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines and were published in English from January 1, 2020, to August 18, 2022. We excluded publications that did not cover or focus on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist were used to assess the study quality. The review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288929). Results Of the 8864 studies identified, 91 observational studies and 11 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines covered conspiracy, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, no need for vaccines, morality, liberty, and humor. Conspiracy and safety concerns were the most prevalent misinformation. There was a great variation in misinformation prevalence, noted among 2.5%-55.4% in the general population and 6.0%-96.7% in the antivaccine/vaccine hesitant groups from survey-based studies, and in 0.1%-41.3% on general online data and 0.5%-56% on antivaccine/vaccine hesitant data from internet-based studies. Younger age, lower education and economic status, right-wing and conservative ideology, and having psychological problems enhanced beliefs in misinformation. The content, format, and source of misinformation influenced its spread. A 5-step framework was proposed to address vaccine-related misinformation, including identifying misinformation, regulating producers and distributors, cutting production and distribution, supporting target audiences, and disseminating trustworthy information. The debunking messages/videos were found to be effective in several experimental studies. Conclusions Our review provides comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and helps responses to vaccine infodemic in future pandemics. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42021288929; https://tinyurl.com/2prejtfa

show abstract

Prebunking messaging to inoculate against COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: an effective strategy for public health

Cited by 31 publications

References 47 publications

Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter

Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter

Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About