Influence of Media Information Sources on Vaccine Uptake: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Almudena Recio-Román
,
Manuel Recio-Menéndez
,
María Victoria Román-González

Vaccine hesitancy is a significant public health concern, with numerous studies demonstrating its negative impact on immunization rates. One factor that can influence vaccine hesitancy is media coverage of vaccination. The media is a significant source of immunization information and can significantly shape people’s attitudes and behaviors toward vaccine uptake. Media influences vaccination positively or negatively. Accurate coverage of the benefits and effectiveness of vaccination can encourage uptake, while coverage of safety concerns or misinformation may increase hesitancy.

  • vaccination
  • vaccine hesitancy
  • media
  • COVID-19 pandemic
  • information sources
  • complacency
  • convenience
  • confidence

1. Introduction

Vaccination is a crucial public health measure that has helped to eradicate deadly diseases and save millions of lives [1]. However, the success of vaccination programs relies heavily on high uptake rates among the population. In addition, various factors can influence an individual’s decision to get vaccinated, including access to information about the vaccines and where people receive their information from [2][3][4]. Vaccine hesitancy is a medical problem, but a social, behavioral, and cultural phenomenon at its core. Social and behavioral sciences can be used to study public health threats. This encompasses the examination of various factors, including demographic attributes within the population (such as social class, age, gender, culture, and race/ethnicity), personal beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, as well as cultural and socio-political systems and policies that impact public health challenges and their possible remedies. This field integrates insights from psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and marketing, utilizing systems theory and models to address intricate public health issues.
Individuals receive information about vaccination from various sources such as healthcare providers, media, and social media. Healthcare providers can significantly influence a vaccination decision by providing personalized recommendations and answering questions [5]. Media, including television, radio, and online news outlets, can provide essential information, but it can also be a source of misinformation, contributing to vaccine hesitancy [6]. Social media is emerging as a significant source of information about vaccination, but it can also be a breeding ground for misinformation and fear-mongering [7][8][9][10]. Overall, the sources of immunization information can positively and negatively influence vaccine uptake, and it is crucial to promote accurate and reliable information while countering misinformation.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed media sources and social networks, with substantial implications for the relationship between media and vaccine uptake. Traditional media outlets, such as television, radio, and newspapers, have played an essential role in disseminating crucial information about the pandemic, government regulations, and vaccination campaigns [11]. These sources have become central to informing and engaging the public [12]. Concurrently, online news platforms and social media have emerged as primary channels for the swift and extensive dissemination of information related to COVID-19, vaccines, and public health measures [13].
Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, have seen a surge in user activity related to COVID-19 and vaccinations, with people using these platforms to receive real-time updates and participate in discussions [14]. These platforms allow users to share information, experiences, and opinions, which can contribute to the broader discourse on vaccines and public health.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, online communities, particularly on platforms such as Reddit, have displayed heightened emotionality in their user-generated content [15]. Research has shown that significant global events, such as a pandemic, can substantially influence the emotional content of social postings [16]. Reddit communities, for example, have experienced a range of emotions, including joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, and anticipation [17]. These emotions have been expressed and shared within these online spaces, reflecting the varying perspectives and concerns of the users [18].
The link between the information sources and vaccine uptake could be mediated by vaccine hesitancy [19]. Vaccine hesitancy refers to the reluctance or hesitation to get vaccinated despite the availability of vaccines [20]. It is a complex concept that public health and epidemiology researchers have been studying closely [21][22][23]. This complexity arises because vaccine hesitancy is not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon; instead, it encompasses a wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors related to vaccination. Experts recognize that understanding vaccine hesitancy requires a nuanced approach because it spans a spectrum of levels shaped by various factors such as individual beliefs, cultural norms, socioeconomic conditions, and healthcare access.

2. Key Factors Influencing Vaccine Uptake

Health behavior change theories offer valuable insights into understanding the array of factors that can drive health-promoting behavioral shifts, specifically increasing vaccine adoption. Various thoroughly tested approaches are at our disposal to comprehend the mechanisms underlying health behavior, including the Health Belief Model (HBM), Transtheoretical Model (TTM), Theory of Reasoned Action or Planned Behavior, and Media Dependence Theory, among others [24][25][26][27]. A common thread among these theories and models is that individuals engage in an internal decision-making process to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of taking a particular action—in this case, getting vaccinated. In particular, individuals cognitively assess the severity of the health threat and the perceived benefits or risks associated with the recommended action. This personal risk evaluation, akin to a balancing scale, is influenced by numerous factors, including one’s perception of disease risk, the quality of available information regarding disease transmission and severity, the credibility of information sources, the individual’s immediate environment, cultural beliefs, and the social milieu in which they reside and interact. In the contemporary landscape, regrettably, a segment of the population has employed a decision-making framework to conclude that the personal and societal costs of forgoing vaccination might outweigh the health advantages it offers.
The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has identified three key factors influencing vaccine uptake: contextual, individual, and group factors [20]. They also emphasize the significance of “complacency”, “convenience”, and “confidence”, often referred to as the “3Cs”, as the primary contributors to vaccine hesitancy.
Briefly, here are the definitions of these concepts:
  • Complacency: Some people might be complacent about vaccination because they perceive the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases as low. They may also believe they are safe from these diseases due to good health or living in a developed country.
  • Convenience: Inconvenience can be a barrier to vaccination. People may hesitate to get vaccinated if it is not easily accessible or convenient for them.
  • Confidence: People may hesitate to get vaccinated because they do not trust vaccines or are concerned about their safety. They may have heard misinformation about vaccines or have had a negative experience with vaccination.
The media can potentially play a role in each of these categories. One of the main findings of the study is that vaccine hesitancy fully mediated the relationship between media exposure and vaccine uptake, indicating that media exposure alone is insufficient to increase vaccine uptake rates.The study also found that traditional media, such as newspapers, magazines, and radio, strongly affected vaccine uptake rates, while online social networks had a limited positive impact. The little effect of social media on vaccine uptake rates may be attributed to the presence of anti-vaccination groups, the preference of vaccine-hesitant individuals for social media, and the perceived lack of credibility and trustworthiness of social media. Furthermore, there is a paradoxical finding: while television ranked as the second most effective medium for reducing vaccine hesitancy, it had the most detrimental impact on vaccine uptake. One possible explanation for this paradox is that the vaccine information on television might have been insufficient or unclear, failing to convince individuals to get vaccinated. Even though television was good at reducing hesitancy, it might not have provided enough detailed or compelling information to motivate people to take action and get vaccinated. To our knowledge, the potential mediating role of vaccine hesitancy in the association between information sources and vaccine uptake has not been investigated.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/computation11100208

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Ten great public health achievements—Worldwide, 2001–2010. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2011, 60, 814–818.
  2. Sherman, S.M.; Smith, L.E.; Sim, J.; Amlôt, R.; Cutts, M.; Dasch, H.; Rubin, G.J.; Sevdalis, N. COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: Results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 1612–1621.
  3. Ahmad, M.; Majid, U. The value of information: A qualitative analysis of how trust in information sources influences the decision to vaccinate in parents. J. Risk Res. 2022, 25, 1444–1457.
  4. Yaqub, O.; Castle-Clarke, S.; Sevdalis, N.; Chataway, J. Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 112, 1–11.
  5. Malik, A.A.; McFadden, S.M.; Elharake, J.; Omer, S.B. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 26, 100495.
  6. Patelarou, E.; Galanis, P.; Mechili, E.A.; Argyriadi, A.; Argyriadis, A.; Asimakopoulou, E.; Brokaj, S.; Bucaj, J.; Carmona-Torres, J.M.; Cobo-Cuenca, A.I.; et al. Factors influencing nursing students’ intention to accept COVID-19 vaccination: A pooled analysis of seven European countries. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 104, 105010.
  7. Hussain, A.; Ali, S.; Ahmed, M.; Hussain, S. The anti-vaccination movement: A regression in modern medicine. Cureus 2018, 10, e2919.
  8. Benecke, O.; DeYoung, S.E. Anti-Vaccine Decision-Making and Measles Resurgence in the United States. Glob. Pediatr. Health 2019, 6, 2333794X19862949.
  9. Kata, A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm—An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine 2012, 30, 3778–3789.
  10. Witteman, H.O.; Zikmund-Fisher, B.J. The defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and their potential influence in the online vaccination debate. Vaccine 2012, 30, 3734–3740.
  11. Anwar, A.; Malik, M.; Raees, V.; Anwar, A. Role of Mass Media and Public Health Communications in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cureus 2020, 12, e10453.
  12. Pérez Fernámdez, P.; Moreno Aríztegui, M. COVID-19 and social media. In COVID-19 Pandemic; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 85–97.
  13. Anwar, A.; Malik, M.; Raees, V.; Anwar, M.M.; Anwar, A. Role of Mass Media and Public Health Communications in COVID-19 Vaccination. Med. Res. Arch. 2023, 11, e3544.
  14. Al-Zaman, M.S. An exploratory study of social media users’ engagement with COVID-19 vaccine-related content. F1000Research 2021, 10, 236.
  15. Metzler, H.; Rimé, B.; Pellert, M.; Niederkrotenthaler, T.; Di Natale, A.F.; García, D. Collective emotions during the COVID-19 outbreak. Emotion 2021, 23, 844.
  16. Zhunis, A.; Lima, G.; Song, H.; Han, J.; Cha, M. Emotion Bubbles: Emotional Composition of Online Discourse before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak. Proc. ACM Web Conf. 2022, 2022, 2603–2613.
  17. Basile, V.; Cauteruccio, F.; Terracina, G. How Dramatic Events Can Affect Emotionality in Social Posting: The Impact of COVID-19 on Reddit. Futur. Internet 2021, 13, 29.
  18. Vemprala, N.; Bhatt, P.; Valecha, R.; Rao, H.R. Emotions during the COVID-19 Crisis: A Health Versus Economy Analysis of Public Responses. Am. Behav. Sci. 2021, 65, 1972–1989.
  19. Yin, J.D.-C. Media Data and Vaccine Hesitancy: Scoping Review. JMIR Infodemiology 2022, 2, e37300.
  20. MacDonald, N.E. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 2015, 33, 4161–4164.
  21. Bussink-Voorend, D.; Hautvast, J.L.A.; Vandeberg, L.; Visser, O.; Hulscher, M.E.J.L. A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 1634–1648.
  22. Larson, H.J.; Jarrett, C.; Eckersberger, E.; Smith, D.M.D.; Paterson, P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: A systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine 2014, 32, 2150–2159.
  23. Larson, H.J. Defining and measuring vaccine hesitancy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 1609–1610.
  24. Rosenstock, I.M. The Health Belief Model and Preventive Health Behavior. Health Educ. Monogr. 1974, 2, 354–386.
  25. Prochaska, J.O.; DiClemente, C.C. Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. 1982, 19, 276.
  26. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211.
  27. Ma, M.; Raza, S.H.; Yousaf, M.; Zaman, U.; Jin, Q. Investigating the Psychological, Social, Cultural, and Religious Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Intention in Digital Age: A Media Dependency Theory Perspective. Vaccines 2023, 11, 1338.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback