Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. News & Views
  2. Behavioural...
  3. Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media
CCBYNC Open access
Analysis How are Social Media Influencing Vaccination?

Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media

BMJ 2024; 384 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076542 (Published 16 January 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;384:e076542

How are social media influencing vaccination? Read the full collection
  1. Kai Ruggeri, professor1,
  2. Samantha Vanderslott, associate professor2,
  3. Yuki Yamada, associate professor3,
  4. Young Anna Argyris, associate professor4,
  5. Bojana Većkalov, doctoral student5,
  6. Paulo Sergio Boggio, director6,
  7. Mosoka P Fallah, programme manager7,
  8. Friederike Stock, doctoral student8,
  9. Ralph Hertwig, professor9
  1. 1Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA
  2. 2Vaccines and Society Unit, Oxford Vaccine Group, Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, Churchill Hospital, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
  3. 3Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
  4. 4Department of Media and Information, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
  5. 5Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  6. 6Cognitive and Social Neuroscience Laboratory, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, Brazil
  7. 7Saving Lives and Livelihoods, Africa Center for Disease Control, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
  8. 8Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
  9. 9Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
  1. Correspondence to: K Ruggeri kai.ruggeri{at}columbia.edu

Key messages

  • Substantial evidence shows the negative effects of vaccine misinformation on social media

  • Evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to correct or mitigate misinformation is considerably more limited and rarely includes measures of true vaccine uptake

  • The evidence available does indicate ways forward to develop better methods, particularly those that would be less likely to backfire in the way that blanket social media bans have

  • The need for such actions is urgent

Vaccine misinformation on social media has strong effects on behaviour, and the evidence base for interventions to reduce these effects is limited, but better approaches to evidence generation are possible, say Kai Ruggeri and colleagues

Effective population level vaccination campaigns are fundamental to public health.123 Counter campaigns, which are as old as the first vaccines,4 disrupt uptake and can threaten public health globally.4 In 2019, public health researchers linked increases in measles cases with the proliferation of global anti-vaccine campaigns.5 Some of these campaigns originated offline but were later amplified and expedited through social media, resulting in real world harms.6 Though crises and genuine safety concerns can also lower vaccine uptake,78 the return of measles after aggressive anti-vaccine campaigns prompted the World Health Organisation to list vaccine hesitancy among the greatest threats to global health (box 1).14

Box 1

Vaccine hesitancy

Here, we use the term “vaccine hesitancy” as originally defined by WHO9: a “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services.” This definition, plus the expanded description of variation based on time, place, and population, gives a broad understanding but also allows us to distinguish vaccination behaviour from the underpinning psychological, environmental, and structural aspects influencing behaviour. This definition is most commonly used in literature pre-dating covid-19. Though there are debates about the most appropriate terms (“vaccine demand” is an alternative, for example) or updated definitions (including the updated WHO version) to use, applying the original WHO definition ensured that we captured relevant insights and evidence from the literature.10111213 We also identify disinformation as a form of misinformation that deliberately seeks to mislead or otherwise disrupt understanding, although we cover both broadly under misinformation for the purposes of this paper.

RETURN TO TEXT

Anti-vaccine campaigns proliferated during the covid-19 pandemic15 with undeniable effects including substantial increases in covid related illness and death.151617 Even before March 2020, vaccine hesitancy was directly linked to misinformation (false, inaccurate information promoted as factual) spread on social media.18 Once covid-19 reached pandemic status, social media was acknowledged as the epicentre of misinformation leading to hesitancy,1920 and consequently, interventions to tackle hesitancy have globally focused on delivery through social media.2122

Despite unprecedented levels of vaccine access and nearly real time communication on the development and availability of vaccines in 2020-21, public health officials struggled to keep pace with misleading or inaccurate content online.23 As guidelines shifted with the emergence of new information, policy decisions were often perceived by individuals and groups who are prone to distrust or refute government messaging as a response not to evidence but to mistakes or lack of expertise.2425 A 2021 randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that exposure to misinformation about covid-19 vaccines lowered the intent of recipients to vaccinate, even among those reporting before exposure that they would “definitely” accept vaccination.21 Similar findings globally indicate that social media dynamics exacerbated the sharing of misinformation, reduced vaccination rates, undermined trust in reliable information, magnified polarisation, and damaged the perceived credibility of institutions.2627282930 These challenges remain today.

Approaches to reducing vaccine hesitancy

Standard behavioural approaches to encourage vaccination include mandatory vaccination and regulation for healthcare professionals, incentives, public health communication campaigns, and engaging trusted leaders.31 Contemporary methods have started to be implemented on social media,10313233 including debunking (fact checking specific claims after they have reached social media users) and “pre-bunking,” a behavioural approach in which users are taught about how “fake news” works before exposure.34 Other intervention types include warning (“inoculating”) people about manipulation tactics using non-harmful exposure as a tool to identify misinformation, and using accuracy prompts to trigger people to consider the truthfulness of material they are about to share on social media platforms, without stopping them from posting.35 Recognising the intense effect of social media on vaccine hesitancy,36 the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention developed a toolkit to assist countries in social media strategies aimed at encouraging vaccination.37

Such behavioural approaches to misinformation on social media have shown promise in reducing the sharing of disinformation and misinformation (box 1) and in changing people’s beliefs,38 but less clear is their effect on vaccination uptake. Investigating the success of such interventions on uptake is essential because there is an established link between social media exposure and offline beliefs that vaccines are unsafe.39 It is clear, however, that providing fact based probabilistic information alone fails to meaningfully increase uptake40 and might even backfire.41 Factors such as low trust in governments and health institutions are likely to be instrumental in derailing effective immunisation programmmes.42 Multiple drivers and barriers to vaccine uptake must therefore be considered when developing effective tools.

Evaluating interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy

We identified 30 studies evaluating interventions to tackle misinformation on social media that explicitly captured real world behavioural outcomes (see supplementary information on bmj.com). After excluding 19 studies for lack of external validation, only 11 published interventions were left (table 1; box 2; fig 1). There is clearly insufficient evidence from field studies on social media interventions. Only two interventions that met all criteria came from outside the US (Israel43 and Nigeria53), with a recent study conducted in Nigeria producing perhaps the most robust level of evidence.

Table 1

Interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy through social media that assessed real world vaccine behaviours

View this table:
Box 2

A robust research agenda for social media interventions is needed

Studies on reducing vaccine hesitancy can inform broader vaccination messaging campaigns. We recommend some critical features that should be included for all interventions (fig 1). Details about the type of vaccine and the target group should be highly specific, as should the form of hesitancy and misinformation,54 the misinformation source, and details of the method (especially for RCTs). Real world effects (ideally direct and broader public health indicators) must be captured. These aspects are relevant for better understanding of what might work and for what reasons and for comparison between methods and social media platforms. The most informative approach would cover the first three levels of evidence under the THEARI system (theoretical, empirical, and real world).55 Over time, these would accumulate to the fourth (replicated) and fifth (well established impact) levels, maximising the potential for predictive validity of applications to public policy (for example, greater confidence in anticipated effects). Doing so would exceed the criteria listed in a recent call for a gold standard for trials tackling vaccine hesitancy.56

RETURN TO TEXT
Fig 1
Fig 1

Critical aspects of studies that are necessary to better understand and compare possible interventions that tackle vaccine hesitancy on social media (described in box 2). The examples of what specifically to measure and observe are non-exhaustive. All aspects should be included for maximum value, though behavioural and population health outcomes should be prioritised. Boxes with thick outlines and darker shading are considered absolutely necessary, though all boxes are strongly recommended.

Some evidence exists from field studies that did not directly target misinformation but provided accurate and useful information about vaccines. These were typically posted on interactive websites or directly in social media feeds. Changes in attitudes, knowledge, and social media engagement were reported for several information campaigns using social media advertisements in before and after designs and designs without control groups.44454748 But these studies showed no changes in vaccination behaviours. Only two studies, both RCTs, showed that tackling vaccination concerns and providing information in interactive formats on a website increased vaccination46 and reduced days undervaccinated.51

Two interventions that increased vaccination uptake used targeted messages through Facebook adverts57 and personalised influencer content.58 But each had limitations. In the first, vaccination rates increased only among families of medium-low socioeconomic status, indicating narrow effectiveness. In the second, the measures were primarily attitudinal, and behavioural outcomes were self-reported.

Linking online campaigns to true behaviours in field studies is a major challenge. This is partly because running well controlled studies is simpler in laboratory experiments and surveys, and because capturing distal effects (true behaviours) of web based studies is often impossible. But showing some measures of success in increasing uptake is necessary to justify investment to develop interventions at scale. Therefore, it is critical that researchers of vaccine behaviours and associated campaigns engage directly with clinics and public health agencies to improve the ecological and external validity (that is, real world, observed outcomes) of interventions (box 2).

Developing better interventions to confront vaccine hesitancy on social media

Few interventions among those we evaluated captured evidence about real world behaviours, so there is currently no gold standard toolkit that public health agencies can refer to.56 But the evidence available can inform future tool development. We provide 10 insights based on the existing evidence that should help provide a clearer and more specific, evidence driven toolkit of approaches to reduce vaccine hesitancy.

  • Negative sentiments on social media might increase vaccine hesitancy faster than interventions reduce it3959—Although vaccine hesitancy can stem from many sources, including mass media and political rhetoric as well as genuine safety concerns, there is ample evidence of a proliferation of anti-vaccine messages on social media leading to organised offline actions and increased hesitancy.60 This is driven by several social and individual factors, as well as foreign disinformation campaigns and bots.6162 There is less evidence that efforts to specifically mitigate misinformation have had a reliable effect on real world vaccine uptake.

  • Messaging seems to work best when it is tailored to what groups know and care about—Two relatively large vaccination interventions, one for flu, one for human papillomavirus (HPV), found modest effects through targeting specific groups. Broad campaigns through all forms of media tend to be generally effective. But once misinformation and conflicting views are prevalent, speaking directly to audiences, knowing the reasons for hesitancy, and framing information in a way that matters to individuals are critical.546364

  • Simple messaging about benefits and risk based on probabilities is not enough—Filling vaccine knowledge gaps has direct benefits, such as supporting informed decisions,63 but messaging with information about benefits, harms, and associated probabilities is insufficient to resolve vaccine hesitancy.40 Some possible explanations include lack of trust and cultural values, which have a major effect on how scientific data are interpreted and accepted through social media.65 Messages must be conveyed in a way that affirms individual cultural values,66 dealing with topics of importance to individuals, not only health facts, using credible sources of information.67 Visual imagery also helps deliver effective messages,68 and other components should be considered, such as health literacy, simplified language, and context specific features like age or language.

  • Correct misinformation to both parents and their children—Parents, especially mothers, play a major part in child vaccination.58 One large campaign carried out on Facebook directed at mothers of teens had some positive effects in specific income groups, but the overall effect was minimal to null. Addressing parents is clearly of value, but young people also seek out information online for themselves.69 Thus, the information teens are presented with online likely needs similar but unique safeguards against misinformation to the ones discussed. Directly involving parents and young people in the design of messaging might strengthen the effectiveness of these campaigns.70

  • Trust matters: the message,71the messenger,63and the (vaccinated) provider57—Substantial amounts of anti-vaccine messaging comes from non-medically qualified, or non-expert, voices on social media.72 Thus, medical professionals are under-represented when it comes to legitimate and accurate information about vaccines on social media,73 despite typically being the most trusted sources (especially among parents74). Trust is potentially the most distinct characteristic of successful vaccination campaigns,5075 and this includes ones delivered on social media.76 Ultimately, the source of the message—whether a healthcare provider, a politician, or a social media influencer—is likely to have a major role in whether individuals and communities deem information to be credible.5763 These interventions have great potential when delivered to the right population.30 The US state of New York, for example, was a stronghold of anti-vaccine sentiment before 2020, which pivoted after the arrival of covid-19 vaccines. Despite intensifying hesitancy and misinformation waves, the state outpaced the national average for vaccination rates, benefiting both public health77 and economic returns.78 This success is attributed to strategies that, on top of tackling misinformation, also cultivated trust in the source of the vaccine, the messenger, and the provider, involving use of the military (a highly trusted organisation in the US), diverse community messengers (including community health workers and faith leaders), and a broad network of vaccination locations.79808182 These aspects must be ensured in public campaigns aimed at specific groups, especially those who are vaccine hesitant.64

  • Debunking efforts have shown mixed effects on social media—Distributing information from public institutions or providing objective information from third parties might help to counter misinformation, reduce the intention to spread misinformation, and promote health behaviours, but the process is not always smooth. The backfire effect is a concerning pattern in which disproving misinformation reinforces it and deepens false beliefs.83 But this phenomenon is not consistently observed in practice. Effects of debunking might be highly dependent on the recipient’s background knowledge and beliefs, methods of presentation, and what other information is viewed.8485 For now, the immediate priority for this approach is to determine if inoculation based on pre-bunking can reliably reduce the noxious effects of next widespread waves of misinformation and resulting misbeliefs.

  • Raising the quality and visibility of reliable health information can counter misinformation—Providing simple probabilistic information is not likely to completely counteract misinformation on its own, but providing information on how, where, and when to get a vaccine does.76 The high volume of misinformation appearing in online searches, however, can override more reliable sources,86 limiting the effectiveness of high-quality information campaigns.87 To increase campaign effectiveness, interactive designs and visual aids such as posters or videos help target populations see and engage with accurate, accessible information throughout a campaign.51 Making it easier to find such materials is paramount, starting with search engine optimisation to increase visibility of campaigns.

  • Framing of vaccine messages matters—How public campaign messaging is framed affects health decision making. A public campaign can’t cover all vaccines, diseases, populations, and reasons for hesitancy; framing messages to be directly relevant to a populations’ needs (benefits and risks specific to their group) have resulted in significant increases in uptake.88 Positive and negative framing effects are not equivalent,89 however, and this should be factored into messaging decisions.

  • Blanket bans can drive groups and activities underground—Broad social media bans of individuals or of specific content can paradoxically result in the spread of misinformation and can galvanise problematic echo chambers by driving discussion into private social media groups or closed forums.9091 Such closed environments are unlikely to include different viewpoints or corrective information, so misinformation is more likely to be reinforced. Rather than rely on outright bans, policy makers and content managers should explore methods that limit the spread and influence of misinformation.92

  • Social media platforms need to be part of the solution—If social media platforms are the epicentre of misinformation, then social media companies need to be part of the solution.39 During the covid-19 pandemic, social media platforms took a more interventionist approach to content moderation than before (and, in some cases, removed or limited covid-19 misinformation and conspiracies).93 Some of these approaches are now being rolled back, and social media researchers’ access to data about behaviour on the global platform X (formerly Twitter) is being limited. Content labelling and corrective actions have produced some positive effects,94 but social media companies should be more proactive in dealing with the proliferation of misinformation on their sites.95 We endorse calls39 to make data available and to work with researchers and regulators in all countries to enable developing effective solutions.

It is worth it to get these campaigns right

Misinformation is not new and its noxious consequences are not insurmountable, but its effect on vaccine hesitancy through social media is an urgent global threat to public health. Increasingly robust evidence has shown the drivers and effects of this phenomenon, but few successful, let alone replicated, interventions exist. One important step towards developing more effective interventions is the close monitoring of public perceptions and opinions about vaccination and services. Digital technologies make it possible to analyse large quantities of “social listening data” in real time.96 Such information would complement the evidence we already have from a variety of study types, improving the design of new, robust, and appropriately targeted interventions. Because most published interventions focused on attitudes and intentions rather than on actual vaccination, however, there remains an urgent need for direct partnerships between behavioural researchers with healthcare clinics and public health agencies.77 Meaningfully developing those partnerships promises direct benefits for more reliable scientific insights that would improve the health and well being of entire populations.

Acknowledgments

We thank Valentina Cafarelli for assistance with reviewing interventions identified during the search.

Footnotes

  • Contributors and sources: KR conceived the idea. BV and FS were involved in the conceptualisation and delivery of the literature search, with support from YAA. KR and FS reviewed and extracted information from studies. YY, RH, SV, YAA contributed to the first draft of the manuscript. All co-authors reviewed and provided insightful comments to subsequent manuscript drafts. KR and PSB provided earlier drafts of the figure in box 2. All authors approved the final report. KR is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor of this work.

  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient and public involvement: No patients or general members of the public were asked to participate given this Analysis did not relate to clinical care or health services. The focus of the article was to summarise available evidence and provide directions for future research.

  • Competing interests: All authors confirm that they have no conflicts or competing interests in contributing to this manuscript.

  • The article is part of a collection that was proposed by the Advancing Health Online Initiative (AHO), a consortium of partners including Meta and MSD, and several non-profit collaborators (https://www.bmj.com/social-media-influencing-vaccination). Research articles were submitted following invitations by The BMJ and associated BMJ journals, after consideration by an internal BMJ committee. Non-research articles were independently commissioned by The BMJ with advice from Sander van der Linden, Alison Buttenheim, Briony Swire-Thompson, and Charles Shey Wiysonge. Peer review, editing, and decisions to publish articles were carried out by the respective BMJ journals. Emma Veitch was the editor for this collection.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Carter A,
    2. Msemburi W,
    3. Sim SY,
    4. et al
    . Modeling the impact of vaccination for the immunization Agenda 2030: Deaths averted due to vaccination against 14 pathogens in 194 countries from 2021 to 2030. Vaccine2023;S0264-410X(23)00854-X. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.07.033 pmid:37537094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why CDC is involved in global immunization. 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/immunization/why/index.html.
  3. ↵
    1. Sim SY,
    2. Watts E,
    3. Constenla D,
    4. Brenzel L,
    5. Patenaude BN
    . Return on investment from immunization against 10 pathogens in 94 low- and middle-income countries, 2011-30. Health Aff (Millwood)2020;39:1343-53. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00103 pmid:32744930
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Mutombo PN,
    2. Fallah MP,
    3. Munodawafa D,
    4. et al
    . COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Africa: a call to action. Lancet Glob Health2022;10:e320-1. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00563-5 pmid:34942117
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hotez PJ,
    2. Nuzhath T,
    3. Colwell B
    . Combating vaccine hesitancy and other 21st century social determinants in the global fight against measles. Curr Opin Virol2020;41:1-7. doi:10.1016/j.coviro.2020.01.001 pmid:32113136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Dyer O
    . Measles outbreak in Somali American community follows anti-vaccine talks. BMJ2017;357:j2378. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2378 pmid:28512183
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Lam E,
    2. McCarthy A,
    3. Brennan M
    . Vaccine-preventable diseases in humanitarian emergencies among refugee and internally-displaced populations. Hum Vaccin Immunother2015;11:2627-36. doi:10.1080/21645515.2015.1096457 pmid:26406333
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Cooper S,
    2. Gadanya M,
    3. Kaawa-Mafigir D,
    4. et al
    . Using social media to build confidence in vaccines: lessons from community engagement and social science research in Africa. BMJ2023;383:e075564
  9. ↵
    1. MacDonald NE,
    2. SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy
    . Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine2015;33:4161-4. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 pmid:25896383
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Larson HJ,
    2. Gakidou E,
    3. Murray CJL
    . The vaccine-hesitant moment. N Engl J Med2022;387:58-65. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2106441 pmid:35767527
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Dudley MZ,
    2. Privor-Dumm L,
    3. Dubé È,
    4. MacDonald NE
    . Words matter: vaccine hesitancy, vaccine demand, vaccine confidence, herd immunity and mandatory vaccination. Vaccine2020;38:709-11. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.11.056 pmid:31836257
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Bussink-Voorend D,
    2. Hautvast JLA,
    3. Vandeberg L,
    4. Visser O,
    5. Hulscher MEJL
    . A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy. Nat Hum Behav2022;6:1634-48. doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01431-6 pmid:35995837
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    World Health Organization. Understanding the behavioural and social drivers of vaccine uptake WHO position paper—May 2022. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/who-wer9720-209-224.
  14. ↵
    Nohynek H, Arora N, Binka F, et al. Report of the Expert Advisory Group on SAGE Evaluation (EAGSE). https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/sage/sage-evaluation-2019/sage_evaluation_report_2019_print_final.pdf
  15. ↵
    Unicef. New data indicates declining confidence in childhood vaccines of up to 44 percentage points in some countries during the covid-19 pandemic. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/sowc_2023_immunization
  16. ↵
    1. Karafillakis E,
    2. Van Damme P,
    3. Hendrickx G,
    4. Larson HJ
    . COVID-19 in Europe: new challenges for addressing vaccine hesitancy. Lancet2022;399:699-701. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00150-7 pmid:35123665
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Council of Canadian Academies. Fault lines. The Expert Panel on the Socioeconomic Impacts of Science and Health Misinformation. 26 Jan 2023. https://cca-reports.ca/reports/the-socioeconomic-impacts-of-health-and-science-misinformation/.
  18. ↵
    1. Burki T
    . Vaccine misinformation and social media. Lancet Digit Health2019;1:e258-9doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30136-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Razai MS,
    2. Chaudhry UAR,
    3. Doerholt K,
    4. Bauld L,
    5. Majeed A
    . Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy. BMJ2021;373:n1138. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1138 pmid:34016653
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Solís Arce JS,
    2. Warren SS,
    3. Meriggi NF,
    4. et al
    . COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries. Nat Med2021;27:1385-94. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01454-y pmid:34272499
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Loomba S,
    2. de Figueiredo A,
    3. Piatek SJ,
    4. de Graaf K,
    5. Larson HJ
    . Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav2021;5:337-48. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 pmid:33547453
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Arechar AA,
    2. Allen J,
    3. Berinsky AJ,
    4. et al
    . Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents. Nat Hum Behav2023;7:1502-13. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01641-6 pmid:37386111
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ruggeri K,
    2. Stock F,
    3. Haslam SA,
    4. et al
    . A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioral science during covid. Nature2023; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9
  24. ↵
    1. Wegwarth O,
    2. Hertwig R,
    3. Giese H,
    4. Fineberg HV
    . The impact of nontransparent health communication during the covid-19 pandemic on vaccine- hesitant people’s perception of vaccines. Preprint. 2023doi:10.31219/osf.io/znwyx.
  25. ↵
    1. Stephenson-Hunter C,
    2. Yusuf Y,
    3. Larson R,
    4. Campanella J,
    5. Gutnick DN
    . What matters to us: bridging research and accurate information through dialogue (BRAID) to build community trust and cultivate vaccine confidence. Prev Med Rep2023;34:102253. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102253 pmid:37252070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Pierri F,
    2. Perry BL,
    3. DeVerna MR,
    4. et al
    . Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal. Sci Rep2022;12:5966. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-10070-w pmid:35474313
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Fridman A,
    2. Gershon R,
    3. Gneezy A
    . COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study. PLoS One2021;16:e0250123. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250123 pmid:33861765
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Yang K-C,
    2. et al
    . The covid-19 infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook. Big Data Soc2021;8:20539517211013860doi:10.1177/20539517211013861
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Wallace J,
    2. Goldsmith-Pinkham P,
    3. Schwartz JL
    . Excess death rates for Republican and Democratic registered voters in Florida and Ohio during the covid-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med2023;183:916-23. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1154 pmid:37486680
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Larsen BJ,
    2. Ryan TJ,
    3. Greene S,
    4. Hetherington MJ,
    5. Maxwell R,
    6. Tadelis S
    . Counter-stereotypical messaging and partisan cues: Moving the needle on vaccines in a polarized United States. Sci Adv2023;9:eadg9434. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg9434 pmid:37467319
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Cameron-Blake E,
    2. Tatlow H,
    3. Andretti B,
    4. et al
    . A panel dataset of covid-19 vaccination policies in 185 countries. Nat Hum Behav2023;7:1402-13. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01615-8 pmid:37414885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Pluviano S,
    2. Watt C,
    3. Della Sala S
    . Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS One2017;12:e0181640. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181640 pmid:28749996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Lazer DMJ,
    2. Baum MA,
    3. Benkler Y,
    4. et al
    . The science of fake news. Science2018;359:1094-6. doi:10.1126/science.aao2998 pmid:29590025
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Basol M,
    2. et al
    . Towards psychological herd immunity: Cross-cultural evidence for two prebunking interventions against COVID-19 misinformation. Big Data Soc2021;8:20539517211013868doi:10.1177/20539517211013868
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Pennycook G,
    2. Rand DG
    . Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nat Commun2022;13:2333. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5 pmid:35484277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Osuagwu UL,
    2. Mashige KP,
    3. Ovenseri-Ogbomo G,
    4. et al
    . The impact of information sources on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health2023;23:38. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14972-2 pmid:36609264
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Africa CDC. Covid-19 social media support kit. https://africacdc.org/download/covid-19-social-media-support-kit/
  38. ↵
    1. Pennycook G,
    2. Rand DG
    . Nudging social media toward accuracy. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci2022;700:152-64. doi:10.1177/00027162221092342 pmid:35558818
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Wilson SL,
    2. Wiysonge C
    . Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob Health2020;5:e004206. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206 pmid:33097547
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Dubé E,
    2. Laberge C,
    3. Guay M,
    4. Bramadat P,
    5. Roy R,
    6. Bettinger J
    . Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother2013;9:1763-73. doi:10.4161/hv.24657 pmid:23584253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Nyhan B,
    2. Reifler J
    . Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine2015;33:459-64. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017 pmid:25499651
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Goldenberg MJ
    . Vaccine hesitancy: public trust, expertise, and the war on science.University of Pittsburgh Press, 2021doi:10.2307/j.ctv1ghv4s4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Chodick G,
    2. Teper GR,
    3. Levi S,
    4. et al
    . The impact of a Facebook campaign among mothers on HPV vaccine uptake among their daughters: A randomized field study. Gynecol Oncol2021;160:106-11. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.10.037 pmid:33162176
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Brandt HM,
    2. Sundstrom B,
    3. Monroe CM,
    4. et al
    . Evaluating a technology-mediated HPV vaccination awareness intervention: a controlled, quasi-experimental, mixed methods study. Vaccines (Basel)2020;8:749. doi:10.3390/vaccines8040749 pmid:33321975
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Bonnevie E,
    2. Rosenberg SD,
    3. Kummeth C,
    4. Goldbarg J,
    5. Wartella E,
    6. Smyser J
    . Using social media influencers to increase knowledge and positive attitudes toward the flu vaccine. PLoS One2020;15:e0240828. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240828 pmid:33064738
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. O’Leary ST,
    2. Narwaney KJ,
    3. Wagner NM,
    4. Kraus CR,
    5. Omer SB,
    6. Glanz JM
    . Efficacy of a web-based intervention to increase uptake of maternal vaccines: An RCT. Am J Prev Med2019;57:e125-33. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.05.018 pmid:31471001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Ortiz RR,
    2. Shafer A,
    3. Cates J,
    4. Coyne-Beasley T
    . Development and evaluation of a social media health intervention to improve adolescents’ knowledge about and vaccination against the human papillomavirus. Glob Pediatr Health2018;5:X18777918. doi:10.1177/2333794X18777918 pmid:29872667
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Mohanty S,
    2. Leader AE,
    3. Gibeau E,
    4. Johnson C
    . Using Facebook to reach adolescents for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Vaccine2018;36:5955-61. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.060 pmid:30172634
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sundstrom B,
    2. Brandt HM,
    3. Gray L,
    4. Young Pierce J
    . It’s my time: applying the health belief model to prevent cervical cancer among college-age women. J Commun Manag (Lond)2018;22:161-78doi:10.1108/JCOM-06-2016-0044
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Huang JJ,
    2. Francesconi M,
    3. Cooper MH,
    4. Covello A,
    5. Guo M,
    6. Gharib SD
    . Community health workers on a college campus: Effects on influenza vaccination. J Am Coll Health2018;66:317-23. doi:10.1080/07448481.2018.1440582 pmid:29447623
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Glanz JM,
    2. Wagner NM,
    3. Narwaney KJ,
    4. et al
    . Web-based social media intervention to increase vaccine acceptance: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics2017;140:e20171117. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-1117 pmid:29109107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shropshire AM,
    2. Brent-Hotchkiss R,
    3. Andrews UK
    . Mass media campaign impacts influenza vaccine obtainment of university students. J Am Coll Health2013;61:435-43. doi:10.1080/07448481.2013.830619 pmid:24152021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Evans WD,
    2. Bingenheimer JB,
    3. Long M,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes of a social media campaign to promote covid-19 vaccination in Nigeria. PLoS One2023;18:e0290757. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290757 pmid:37713381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Fasce A,
    2. Schmid P,
    3. Holford DL,
    4. Bates L,
    5. Gurevych I,
    6. Lewandowsky S
    . A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling. Nat Hum Behav2023;7:1462-80. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01644-3 pmid:37460761
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Ruggeri K, van der Linden S, Wang YC, Papa F, Riesch J, Green J. Standards for evidence in policy decision-making. Nature Research Social and Behavioural Science. 5 Jun 2020. go.nature.com/2zdTQIs
  56. ↵
    1. van der Linden S
    . We need a gold standard for randomised control trials studying misinformation and vaccine hesitancy on social media. BMJ2023;381:1007. doi:10.1136/bmj.p1007 pmid:37146997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Bartoš V,
    2. Bauer M,
    3. Cahlíková J,
    4. Chytilová J
    . Communicating doctors’ consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature2022;606:542-9. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04805-y pmid:35650433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Argyris YA,
    2. Kim Y,
    3. Roscizewski A,
    4. Song W
    . The mediating role of vaccine hesitancy between maternal engagement with anti- and pro-vaccine social media posts and adolescent HPV-vaccine uptake rates in the US: The perspective of loss aversion in emotion-laden decision circumstances. Soc Sci Med2021;282:114043. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114043 pmid:34147269
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Rathje S,
    2. He JK,
    3. Roozenbeek J,
    4. Van Bavel JJ,
    5. van der Linden S
    . Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy. PNAS Nexus2022;1:pgac207. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac207 pmid:36714849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Martin S,
    2. Vanderslott S
    . “Any idea how fast ‘It’s just a mask!’ can turn into ‘It’s just a vaccine!’”: From mask mandates to vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine2022;40:7488-99. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.031 pmid:34823912
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Yuan X,
    2. Schuchard RJ,
    3. Crooks AT
    . Examining emergent communities and social bots within the polarized online vaccination debate in Twitter. Soc Media Soc2019;5:2056305119865465doi:10.1177/2056305119865465
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Ginossar T,
    2. Shah SFA,
    3. Weiss D
    1. Walter D,
    2. Ophir Y
    . Online foreign propaganda campaigns and vaccine misinformation: a comparative analysis. In: Ginossar T, Shah SFA, Weiss D, eds. Vaccine Communication Online.Palgrave Macmillan, 2023, https://doi-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1007/978-3-031-24490-2_6doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24490-2_6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. ↵
    1. Limaye RJ,
    2. Holroyd TA,
    3. Blunt M,
    4. et al
    . Social media strategies to affect vaccine acceptance: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Vaccines2021;20:959-73. doi:10.1080/14760584.2021.1949292 pmid:34192985
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Omer SB,
    2. Benjamin RM,
    3. Brewer NT,
    4. et al
    . Promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: recommendations from the Lancet Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA. Lancet2021;398:2186-92. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02507-1 pmid:34793741
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Kahan D
    . Fixing the communications failure. Nature2010;463:296-7. doi:10.1038/463296a pmid:20090734
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. ↵
    1. Ajeigbe O,
    2. Arage G,
    3. Besong M,
    4. et al.,
    5. Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study African Scholars Network
    . Culturally relevant COVID-19 vaccine acceptance strategies in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Glob Health2022;10:e1090-1. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00251-0 pmid:35691328
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Richard-Eaglin A,
    2. McFarland ML
    . Applying cultural intelligence to improve vaccine hesitancy among black, indigenous, and people of color. Nurs Clin North Am2022;57:421-31. doi:10.1016/j.cnur.2022.04.008 pmid:35985729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Papachrisanthou MM,
    2. Lorenz RA,
    3. Loman DG
    . Increasing immunization adherence among infants of low-income parents: the effects of visually enhanced education. J Nurse Pract2016;12:304-10doi:10.1016/j.nurpra.2015.12.021
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. ↵
    1. Taba M,
    2. Ayre J,
    3. Freeman B,
    4. McCaffery K,
    5. Bonner C
    . COVID-19 messages targeting young people on social media: content analysis of Australian health authority posts. Health Promot Int2023;38:daad034. doi:10.1093/heapro/daad034 pmid:37099680
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Thompson EL,
    2. Preston SM,
    3. Francis JKR,
    4. et al
    . Social media perceptions and internet verification skills associated with human papillomavirus vaccine decision-making among parents of children and adolescents: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Pediatr Parent2022;5:e38297. doi:10.2196/38297 pmid:36103216
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Shen AK,
    2. Browne S,
    3. Srivastava T,
    4. Kornides ML,
    5. Tan ASL
    . Trusted messengers and trusted messages: the role for community-based organizations in promoting COVID-19 and routine immunizations. Vaccine2023;41:1994-2002. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.045 pmid:36803894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Hernandez RG,
    2. Hagen L,
    3. Walker K,
    4. O’Leary H,
    5. Lengacher C
    . The COVID-19 vaccine social media infodemic: healthcare providers’ missed dose in addressing misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Hum Vaccin Immunother2021;17:2962-4. doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1912551 pmid:33890838
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Stecula DA,
    2. Kuru O,
    3. Jamieson KH
    . How trust in experts and media use affect acceptance of common anti-vaccination claims. Harv Kennedy Sch Misinformation Rev2020; doi:10.37016/mr-2020-007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    US Centers for Disease and Prevention. About the vaccine conversations with parents campaign. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/about-vacc-conversations.html.
  75. ↵
    National Academies. Communication strategies for building confidence in covid-19 vaccines: addressing variants and childhood vaccinations. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26361/communication-strategies-for-building-confidence-in-covid-19-vaccines-addressing.
  76. ↵
    1. Athey S,
    2. Grabarz K,
    3. Luca M,
    4. Wernerfelt N
    . Digital public health interventions at scale: The impact of social media advertising on beliefs and outcomes related to COVID vaccines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2023;120:e2208110120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2208110120 pmid:36701366
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Argyris YA,
    2. Nelson VR,
    3. Wiseley K,
    4. Shen R,
    5. Roscizewski A
    . Do social media campaigns foster vaccination adherence? A systematic review of prior intervention-based campaigns on social media. Telemat Inform2023;76:101918. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101918 pmid:36438457
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Sah P,
    2. Vilches TN,
    3. Moghadas SM,
    4. et al
    . Return on investment of the covid-19 vaccination campaign in New York City. JAMA Netw Open2022;5:e2243127. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43127 pmid:36409495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Knudsen J,
    2. Perlman-Gabel M,
    3. Uccelli IG,
    4. Jeavons J,
    5. Chokshi DA
    . Combating misinformation as a core function of public health. NEJM Catal2023;4doi:10.1056/CAT.22.0198.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. ↵
    1. Ruggeri K,
    2. Palacios K,
    3. Perkins ZA,
    4. et al
    . Role of military forces in the New York State response to covid-19. JAMA Health Forum2022;3:e222136. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2136 pmid:36218979
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    Gallup. Confidence in institutions. 2007. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/Confidence-Institutions.aspx.
  82. ↵
    New York State Department of Health. New York State’s covid-19 vaccination program. 2020. https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/NYS_COVID_Vaccination_Program_Book_10.16.20_FINAL.pdf
  83. ↵
    Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Lombardi D. Debunking handbook 2020. 2020. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/245/.
  84. ↵
    1. Ecker UKH,
    2. Sharkey CXM,
    3. Swire-Thompson B
    . Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects. PLoS One2023;18:e0281140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281140 pmid:37043493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Chan MS,
    2. Albarracín D
    . A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. Nat Hum Behav2023;7:1514-25. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01623-8 pmid:37322236
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Ghezzi P,
    2. Bannister PG,
    3. Casino G,
    4. et al
    . Online information of vaccines: information quality, not only privacy, is an ethical responsibility of search engines. Front Med (Lausanne)2020;7:400. doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.00400 pmid:32850905
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Xin M,
    2. Luo S,
    3. Wang S,
    4. et al
    . The roles of information valence, media literacy and perceived information quality on the association between frequent social media exposure and covid-19 vaccination intention. Am J Health Promot2023;37:189-99. doi:10.1177/08901171221121292 pmid:35972385
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Hughes CT,
    2. et al
    . Designing and implementing an educational social media campaign to increase HPV vaccine awareness among men on a large college campus. Am J Health Educ2020;51:87-97doi:10.1080/19325037.2020.1722297
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. ↵
    1. Gursoy D,
    2. Ekinci Y,
    3. Can AS,
    4. Murray JC
    . Effectiveness of message framing in changing COVID-19 vaccination intentions: Moderating role of travel desire. Tour Manag2022;90:104468. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104468 pmid:34898791
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Faccin M,
    2. Gargiulo F,
    3. Atlani-Duault L,
    4. Ward JK
    . Assessing the influence of French vaccine critics during the two first years of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One2022;17:e0271157. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271157 pmid:35925962
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Wang D,
    2. Qian Y
    . Echo chamber effect in rumor rebuttal discussions about covid-19 in China: social media content and network analysis study. J Med Internet Res2021;23:e27009. doi:10.2196/27009 pmid:33690145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Müller J,
    2. Tellier A,
    3. Kurschilgen M
    . Echo chambers and opinion dynamics explain the occurrence of vaccination hesitancy. R Soc Open Sci2022;9:220367. doi:10.1098/rsos.220367 pmid:36312563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Kozyreva A,
    2. Herzog SM,
    3. Lewandowsky S,
    4. et al
    . Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2023;120:e2210666120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2210666120 pmid:36749721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    IPIE. Platform responses to misinformation: a meta-analysis of data. Jul 2023. https://www.ipie.info/research/sr2023-2.
  95. ↵
    Aubin CS, Liedke J. Most Americans favor restrictions on false information, violent content online. Pew Research Centerhttps://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/20/most-americans-favor-restrictions-on-false-information-violent-content-online/.
  96. ↵
    Gavi, Unicef, World Health Organization, Vaccination Demand Hub, Health Enabled. Social listening: finding the signal through the noise. https://www.who.int/news/item/18-08- 2021-social-listening-finding-the-signal-through-the-noise. https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Finding-the-Signal-Through-the-Noise.pdf
Back to top