The differential effects of a governmental debunking campaign concerning COVID-19 vaccination misinformation

Helfers, Anna; Ebersbach, Mirjam

doi:10.1080/17538068.2022.2047497

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All 4 experiments found that debunking message/video could reduce the belief in misinformation [118,[124][125][126]]. Yet, 1 experiment found that this effect worked well for people without strong beliefs in misinformation; when it comes to people who strongly believe in misinformation, the result became counterproductive because it may evoke small backfiring effects of vaccination intention [118]. One experiment further showed that partisans exposed to ingroup media (media held the same political preference as participants) perceived debunking messages as more credible and held higher engagement [125].…”

Section: Disseminating Trustworthy Informationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The curatorial response emphasized that messages should be directly debunking misinformation. 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%

“…Among 8 experimental studies, 4 assessed the effect of debunking message/video, 3 assessed the effect of inoculation messages, and 1 assessed the effect of warning tag/cover. All 4 experiments found that debunking message/video could reduce the belief in misinformation [118,[124][125][126]]. Yet, 1 experiment found that this effect worked well for people without strong beliefs in misinformation; when it comes to people who strongly believe in misinformation, the result became counterproductive because it may evoke small backfiring effects of vaccination intention [118].…”

Section: Disseminating Trustworthy Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, most proposed solutions were not verified regarding their effects on misinformation. With the limited experimental studies, the debunking message/video was considered as effective interventions against misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic [118,[124][125][126].…”

Section: Principal Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Disseminating Trustworthy Informationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Cutting Production and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disseminating Trustworthy Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Principal Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…Refutations should thus be tailored to the misconception. We propose additionally that they should also be tailored to the motivation, i.e., attitude root(s), driving the patient's overall concerns, to raise acceptance for and avoid producing resistance to the proposed alternative (Helfers & Ebersbach, 2022;Nyhan et al, 2014). In delivering the refutation, another consideration is its tone.…”

Section: Empathetic Refutational Interviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Empathetic Refutational Interview to tackle vaccine misconceptions: four randomised experiments

Holford¹,

Schmid²,

Fasce³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce and test the effectiveness of a novel, multi-component intervention that can be used by health care professionals to refute anti-vaccination arguments while remaining empathetic to people's motivations for holding misinformed beliefs: the "Empathetic Refutational Interview" (ERI). The ERI follows four steps to tailor one's response to a vaccine-hesitant individual: (1) elicit their concerns, (2) affirm their values and beliefs to the extent possible, (3) refute misinformed beliefs in a way that is tailored to their psychological motivations, and (4) provide factual vaccine information. In four experiments with participants who were predominantly negative or neutral about vaccination (total n = 2,545), we found that including at least one ERI step increased vaccine acceptance and lowered endorsement of anti-vaccination arguments more than a control without any of the steps. Critically, participants were more receptive to steps 2 and 3 of the ERI than to control conditions without these steps.

show abstract

Long-term assessment of social amplification of risk during COVID-19: challenges to public health agencies amid misinformation and vaccine stance

Unlu,

Truong,

Sawhney

et al. 2024

J Comput Soc Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employs the Social Amplification of Risk Framework to investigate the stance on COVID-19 vaccines and the spread of misinformation on Twitter in Finland. Analyzing over 1.6 million tweets and manually annotating 4150 samples, the research highlights the challenges faced by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) in steering online vaccination communication. Using BERT models, Botometer, and additional computational methods, the study classifies text, identifies bot-like accounts, and detects malicious bots. Social network analysis further uncovers the underlying social structures and key actors in Twitter discussions during the pandemic. The THL remained a primary source of COVID-19 information throughout the pandemic, maintaining its influence despite challenges posed by malicious bots spreading misinformation and adopting negative vaccine stances. However, THL ceased its Twitter activity at the end of 2022 because its posts were being exploited to gain visibility and traction for misinformation and negative vaccine stance. The study also identifies key influencers in online vaccine discussions, suggesting avenues for improving public health communication. Overall, the research underscores the need to understand social media dynamics to counter misinformation and foster accurate public communication on COVID-19 and vaccination.

show abstract

The differential effects of a governmental debunking campaign concerning COVID-19 vaccination misinformation

Cited by 18 publications

References 44 publications

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

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

The Empathetic Refutational Interview to tackle vaccine misconceptions: four randomised experiments

Long-term assessment of social amplification of risk during COVID-19: challenges to public health agencies amid misinformation and vaccine stance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About