Promoting immunization resiliency in the digital information age

Abstract

The avalanche of online information on immunization is having a major impact on the percentage of the population who choose to get vaccinated. Vaccine misinformation spreads widely with the interactive Web 2.0 and social media; this can bury science-based information. A plethora of immunization misinformation online is affecting trust in health care professionals and in public immunization programs. There are no simple solutions to this, but seven evidence-based strategies can help. First, listen to patients' and parents' concerns, and demonstrate responsiveness by adopting best immunization practices, such as pain mitigation. Second, recognize and alert others to anti-immunization tactics, namely, conspiracy theories, fake experts, selectivity, demands that vaccines be 100% safe and effective, misrepresentation and false logic. Third, avoid unproductive debates with those who have strongly held views, both in person and when using social media. Be respectful, stick to your key message, identify where to find useful information and exit. Fourth, consider establishing an attractive, easily searchable online presence that reflects the complex art of persuasion. Emphasize the benefits of vaccine, use reader-friendly graphics and highlight facts with stories to strengthen your case. Fifth, work with social media platform providers, not to stifle freedom of expression, but to help ensure that misinformation is not favoured in searches. Sixth, promote curriculum development in the schools to improve students' understanding of the benefits and safety of immunization and to foster critical thinking skills. To do this, optimize the use of age-appropriate comics and interactive learning tools such as electronic games. Seventh, to shift the narrative in specific communities with low vaccination rates, work with community leaders to build tailored programs that foster trust and reflect local values.

Addressing Parental Vaccine Hesitancy towards Childhood Vaccines in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review of Communication Interventions and Strategies

“…There are numerous messages circulating widely both in support of and against childhood vaccines in the U.S. [ 14 , 15 ]. Parents seeking information about childhood vaccines have ample opportunity for exposure to false and misleading information about vaccines through traditional media outlets and interactive Web 2.0 and social media outlets online [ 16 ]. The plethora of immunization misinformation online buries science-based information and greatly affects health care professionals’ communication abilities and public immunization programs [ 16 , 17 ].…”

“…Parents seeking information about childhood vaccines have ample opportunity for exposure to false and misleading information about vaccines through traditional media outlets and interactive Web 2.0 and social media outlets online [ 16 ]. The plethora of immunization misinformation online buries science-based information and greatly affects health care professionals’ communication abilities and public immunization programs [ 16 , 17 ]. Misinformation and controversies about childhood vaccines tend to focus on questioning the safety and efficacy of specific vaccines [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Aşı Kararsızlığı Bağlamında Aşı Tartışmaları: Twitter’da Kovid-19 Örneği

“…Bu nedenle infodemi, insanların doğru ve yanlış bilgiyi ayırt edebilmesi önündeki en büyük sorunlardan birisidir. MacDonald ve Dubé (2020), sosyal medyada aşılarla ilgili dolaşımda olan çok sayıdaki yanlış bilginin insanların bilimsel bilgileri görmesini engelleyerek aşılarla ilgili tutumlarını büyük ölçüde etkilediğini belirtmiştir. Benzer şekilde Brennan vd., (2020) kovid-19 ile ilgili yanlış bilgi ve komplo teorilerinin en çok çevrim içi yayıldığını ortaya koymuştur.…”

History and Overview of the Menopause Experience

“…The individual's belief system around health and healthcare must be part of the assessment and the management plan. Each individual brings to the clinical encounter her beliefs influenced by the history of women's healthcare, her individual background and social needs, and her understanding which may be based on sources that lack depth or nuance [73,118].…”