Search

ABSTRACT Misinformation regarding vaccine science decreased the receptiveness to COVID-19 vaccines, exacerbating the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on society. To mitigate the negative societal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, impactful and creative science communication was needed, yet little research has explored how to encourage COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and address misconceptions held by non-Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics majors (referred to as non-majors). We have previously demonstrated that including expert guest lectures in the vaccine module in the non-major introductory biology course helps combat students’ vaccine hesitancy. In the present study, we further address how learning about vaccines impacts student knowledge and impressions of the COVID-19 vaccines through a podcast assignment. As a part of this assignment, non-majors created podcasts to address COVID-19 vaccine misconceptions of their choice. We coded pre and post, open-ended essay reflections (n = 40) to assess non-majors’ knowledge and impressions of the COVID-19 vaccines. Non-majors’ impressions of the vaccines improved following the podcast assignment with more than three times as many students reporting a positive view of the assignment than negative views. Notably, eight of the nine interviewed students still ended the course with misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccines, such as the vaccines being unnecessary or causing fertility issues. In a post semi-structured interview following this assignment, students (n = 7) discussed the impact of looking into the specific misconceptions related to COVID-19 vaccines themselves, including improved science communication skills and understanding of different perspectives. Thus, podcasts can provide opportunities for students to improve engagement in valuable societal topics like vaccine literacy in the non-majors classroom.

As evidence mounted that existing prevention methods would be insufficient to end the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that vaccines would be critical to achieve and maintain reduced rates of infection. However, vaccine-hesitant sentiments have become widespread, particularly in populations with lower scientific literacy. The non-STEM major (called non-major) college students represent one such population who rely on one or more science classes to develop their scientific literacy and thus, become candidates of interest for the success of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign. As these students have fewer opportunities to learn how to identify reputable scientific sources or judge the validity of novel scientific findings, it is particularly important that these skills are included in the science courses offered to non-majors. Two concurrent non-major biology courses (N = 98) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in Spring 2021 completed Likert questionnaires with open-ended questions prior to and after an expert-led Vaccine Awareness educational intervention addressing vaccine-related concerns. In the module, experts gave presentations about COVID-19 related to microbiology, epidemiological factors, and professional experiences relating to COVID-19. Ten students agreed to participate in post-semester one-on-one interviews. Student interviews revealed that students perceived guest lecturers as providing more information and assurance. Questionnaire data showed an increase in student willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine as well as increased student perception of the COVID-19 vaccines as both safe and effective (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, p < 0.05). However, the questionnaire data revealed 10 of 98 students remained vaccine-resistant, and these students expressed insufficient research and side effects as leading vaccination concerns. Overall, we show expert-led modules can be effective in increasing non-majors willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Future research should explore the experiences of non-majors and guest lectures, particularly as they relate to vaccination and vaccine concerns.

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta-analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011-2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta-analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9-69.0) across 360 studies ("k"), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p [greater than or equal to] 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.