Misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Tara Zimmerman, Kristina Shiroma, Kenneth R Fleischmann, Bo Xie, Chenyan Jia, Nitin Verma, Min Kyung Lee
Author Information
  1. Tara Zimmerman: Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX, USA. Electronic address: tzimmerman1@twu.edu.
  2. Kristina Shiroma: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  3. Kenneth R Fleischmann: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  4. Bo Xie: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  5. Chenyan Jia: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
  6. Nitin Verma: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  7. Min Kyung Lee: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has emerged as a major public health challenge. Although medical and scientific misinformation has been known to fuel vaccine hesitancy in the past, misinformation surrounding COVID-19 seems to be rampant, and increasing evidence suggests that it is contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy today. The relationship between misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is complex, however, and it is relatively understudied.
METHODS: In this article, we report qualitative data from two related but distinct studies from a larger project. Study 1 included semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted in October-November 2020 via phone with 30 participants to investigate the relationship between misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Study 1's results then informed the design of open-ended questions for Study 2, an online survey conducted in May-June 2021 to consider the relationship between misinformation and vaccine hesitancy further. The data were examined with thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Study 1 led to the identification of positive and negative themes related to attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. In Study 2, responses from vaccine-hesitant participants included six categories of misinformation: medical, scientific, political, media, religious, and technological. Across both Study 1 and Study 2, six vaccine hesitancy themes were identified from the data: concerns about the vaccines' future effects, doubts about the vaccines' effectiveness, commercial profiteering, preference for natural immunity, personal freedom, and COVID-19 denial.
CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between misinformation and vaccine hesitancy is complicated. Various types of misinformation exist, with each related to a specific type of vaccine hesitancy-related attitude. Personal freedom and COVID-19 denial are vaccine attitudes of particular interest, representing important yet understudied phenomena. Medical and scientific approaches may not be sufficient to combat misinformation based in religion, media, or politics; and public health officials may benefit from partnering with experts from those fields to address harmful misinformation that is driving COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348 [PMID: 33547453]
  2. Prog Disaster Sci. 2020 Dec;8:100119 [PMID: 34173443]
  3. Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):433-442 [PMID: 27071389]
  4. Science. 2018 Mar 9;359(6380):1146-1151 [PMID: 29590045]
  5. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):703-705 [PMID: 32282038]
  6. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2022 Sep 20;: [PMID: 36246042]
  7. Vaccine. 2015 Jan 9;33(3):459-64 [PMID: 25499651]
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 6;22(5):e19458 [PMID: 32352383]
  9. Am J Public Health. 2021 May;111(5):956-964 [PMID: 33734838]
  10. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2021;58(1):218-229 [PMID: 34901396]
  11. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Feb;1:100012 [PMID: 33954296]
  12. Soc Sci Med. 2021 Dec;291:114480 [PMID: 34662759]
  13. J Aging Soc Policy. 2020 Jul-Oct;32(4-5):460-470 [PMID: 32507061]
  14. Nature. 2019 Jul;571(7766):449 [PMID: 31341295]
  15. Behav Res Methods. 2019 Oct;51(5):2022-2038 [PMID: 31512174]
  16. Vaccine. 2021 Dec 20;39(52):7625-7632 [PMID: 34802786]
  17. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2020 Dec;12(4):1270-1285 [PMID: 32864837]
  18. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022 Nov;43(11):1750-1752 [PMID: 34338180]
  19. Ann Behav Med. 2017 Oct;51(5):652-660 [PMID: 28255934]
  20. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 16;16(4):e0250123 [PMID: 33861765]
  21. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2020 Dec;71(12):1419-1423 [PMID: 32427189]
  22. Psychol Bull. 1954 Jul;51(4):327-58 [PMID: 13177800]
  23. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2020 Nov;11(8):1110-1118 [PMID: 38602949]
  24. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27 [PMID: 17213046]

MeSH Term

Humans
COVID-19 Vaccines
COVID-19
Telephone
Politics
Communication
Vaccination
Vaccines

Chemicals

COVID-19 Vaccines
Vaccines

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0vaccineCOVID-19hesitancymisinformationStudyrelationshipscientificrelated12publichealthmedicalunderstudieddataincludedopen-endedconductedparticipantsthemesattitudessixmediavaccines'freedomdenialmayMisinformationBACKGROUND:emergedmajorchallengeAlthoughknownfuelpastsurroundingseemsrampantincreasingevidencesuggestscontributingtodaycomplexhoweverrelativelyMETHODS:articlereportqualitativetwodistinctstudieslargerprojectsemi-structuredinterviewsOctober-November2020viaphone30investigate1'sresultsinformeddesignquestionsonlinesurveyMay-June2021considerexaminedthematicanalysisRESULTS:ledidentificationpositivenegativetowardvaccinesresponsesvaccine-hesitantcategoriesmisinformation:politicalreligioustechnologicalAcrossidentifieddata:concernsfutureeffectsdoubtseffectivenesscommercialprofiteeringpreferencenaturalimmunitypersonalCONCLUSIONS:complicatedVarioustypesexistspecifictypehesitancy-relatedattitudePersonalparticularinterestrepresentingimportantyetphenomenaMedicalapproachessufficientcombatbasedreligionpoliticsofficialsbenefitpartneringexpertsfieldsaddressharmfuldrivingDisinformationInterviewsSurveysVaccine

Similar Articles

Cited By