Search

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its enablers shape community uptake of non-covid vaccines such as the oral cholera vaccine (OCV) in the post-COVID-19 era. This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its drivers on OCV hesitancy in a cholera-endemic region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We conducted a community-based survey in Bukavu. The survey included demographics, intention to take OCV and COVID-19 vaccines, reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy, and thoughts and feelings about COVID-19 vaccines. Poisson regression analyses were performed. Of the 1708 respondents, 84.66% and 77.57% were hesitant to OCV alone and to both OCV and COVID-19, respectively. Hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccines rose OCV hesitancy by 12% (crude prevalence ratio, [cPR] = 1.12, 95%CI [1.03–1.21]). Independent predictors of OCV hesitancy were living in a semi-urban area (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.10, 95%CI [1.03–1.12]), religious refusal of vaccines (aPR = 1.06, 95%CI [1.02–1.12]), concerns about vaccine safety (aPR = 1.05, 95%CI [1.01–1.11]) and adverse effects (aPR = 1.06, 95%CI [1.01–1.12]), as well as poor vaccine literacy (aPR = 1.07, 95%CI [1.01–1.14]). Interestingly, the belief in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness reduced OCV hesitancy by 24% (aPR = 0.76, 95%CI [0.62–0.93]). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its drivers exhibited a significant domino effect on OCV uptake. Addressing vaccine hesitancy through community-based health literacy and trust-building interventions would likely improve the introduction of novel non-COVID-19 vaccines in the post-COVID-19 era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern in public health, with increasing numbers of individuals expressing skepticism or outright refusal to receive vaccines. This factor was significantly highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with large populations refusing to take the vaccine and prolonging the pandemic. This paper presents and compares two transformer-based approaches i.e. XLNET and BERT to classify vaccine misinformation on Twitter using the standard COVID-19 ANTi-Vax dataset. Subsequently, an analysis of vaccine discourse on Reddit is carried out following a user association mapping algorithm. The resultant graph was subsequently analyzed. The XLNET model outperformed BERT by showing a high accuracy of 0.9484, with an F1 score of 0.9353. The methodology can be used in multiple other scenarios to address concerns with regard to the usage of social media by analyzing network interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its enablers shape community uptake of non-covid vaccines such as the oral cholera vaccine (OCV) in the post-COVID-19 era. This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its drivers on OCV hesitancy in a cholera-endemic region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We conducted a community-based survey in Bukavu. The survey included demographics, intention to take OCV and COVID-19 vaccines, reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy, and thoughts and feelings about COVID-19 vaccines. Poisson regression analyses were performed. Of the 1708 respondents, 84.66% and 77.57% were hesitant to OCV alone and to both OCV and COVID-19, respectively. Hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccines rose OCV hesitancy by 12% (crude prevalence ratio, [cPR] = 1.12, 95%CI [1.03–1.21]). Independent predictors of OCV hesitancy were living in a semi-urban area (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.10, 95%CI [1.03–1.12]), religious refusal of vaccines (aPR = 1.06, 95%CI [1.02–1.12]), concerns about vaccine safety (aPR = 1.05, 95%CI [1.01–1.11]) and adverse effects (aPR = 1.06, 95%CI [1.01–1.12]), as well as poor vaccine literacy (aPR = 1.07, 95%CI [1.01–1.14]). Interestingly, the belief in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness reduced OCV hesitancy by 24% (aPR = 0.76, 95%CI [0.62–0.93]). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its drivers exhibited a significant domino effect on OCV uptake. Addressing vaccine hesitancy through community-based health literacy and trust-building interventions would likely improve the introduction of novel non-COVID-19 vaccines in the post-COVID-19 era.

Objective: COVID-19 disproportionally affected Hispanic/Latinx populations exacerbating systemic health inequities. The pilot study aimed to explore barriers to COVID-19 vaccination across Hispanic/Latinx communities in Southern California. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of 200 participants to identify common barriers to vaccine hesitancy among Hispanics/Latinx individuals in Southern California utilizing a 14-item survey and questionnaire in English and Spanish. Results: Of the 200 participants that completed questionnaires, 37% identified a knowledge deficit, 8% identified misinformation, and 15% identified additional barriers such as awaiting appointments, immigration status, transportation issues, or religious reasons as barriers to not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Wald statistics denoted that household members with COVID-19 infection within the past 3 months saw a medical provider within the last year, wearing a mask in public often, and barriers to vaccination (not knowing enough about the vaccine) predicted vaccine. These variables indicated changes in the likelihood of obtaining vaccination. Conclusion: The most crucial factor for increasing vaccination rates was directly reaching out to the community and actively conducting surveys to address the barriers and concerns encountered by Hispanic/Latinx participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The short time frame between the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic declaration and the vaccines authorization led to concerns among public regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. The Food and Drug Administration uses the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) where general population can report their vaccine side effects in the text box. This information could be utilized to determine self-reported vaccine side effects. Objective To develop a supervised and unsupervised natural language processing (NLP) pipeline to extract self-reported COVID-19 vaccination side effects, location of the side effects, medications, and possibly false/misinformation seeking further investigation in a structured format for analysis and reporting. Methods We utilized the VAERS dataset of COVID-19 vaccine reports from November 2020 to August 2022 of 725,246 individuals. We first developed a gold-standard (GS) dataset of randomly selected 1,500 records. Second, the GS was split into training, testing, and validation sets. The training dataset was used to develop the NLP applications (supervised and unsupervised) and testing and validation datasets were used to test the performances of the NLP application. Results The NLP application automatically extracted vaccine side effects, body locations of the side effects, medication, and possibly misinformation with moderate to high accuracy (84% sensitivity, 82% specificity, and 83% F-1 measure). We found that 23% people (386,270) faced arm soreness, 31% body swelling (226,208), 23% fatigue/body weakness (168,160), and 22% (159,873) cold/flue-like symptoms. Most of the complications occurred in the body locations such as the arm, back, chest, neck, face, and head. Over-the-counter pain medications such as Tylenol and Ibuprofen and allergy medication like Benadryl were most reported self-reported medications. Death due to COVID-19, changes in the DNA, and infertility were possible false/misinformation reported by people. Conclusion Some self-reported side effects such as syncope, arthralgia, and blood clotting need further clinical investigations. Our NLP application may help in extracting information from big free-text electronic datasets to help policy makers and other researchers with decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia handled many aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic very well. The international border was closed early, contract tracing regimes were implemented quickly, and targeted lockdowns helped keep case and death rates per capita to relatively low levels. Yet in mid-2021, Australia's vaccine rollout was the slowest in the OECD. We estimate that an optimal vaccine rollout could have saved lives and averted at least A$31 billion in economic damage. The policy errors reflected a failure to heed basic economic concepts of portfolio diversification, option value, and dynamic optimization. We conclude with some policy lessons concerning pandemic preparedness for Australia and other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: One of the primary reasons for hesitancy in taking COVID-19 vaccines is the fear of side effects. This study primarily aimed to inspect the potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines circulated in Bangladesh.Design and Settings.The study was based on a cross-sectional anonymous online survey conducted in December 2021 across Bangladesh.Participants.The study included consenting Bangladeshi individuals aged 12 and above who had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccines.Main Outcome.Analyses were carried out through exploratory analysis, Chi-square test, and logistic regression to investigate potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Results: A total of 1,180 vaccinated people participated in the study. Only 39.48% of the participants reported at least one side effect after receiving their COVID-19 vaccine. Injection-site pain, fever, headache, redness/swelling at the injection site, and lethargy were the most commonly reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and lasted 1–3 days. Side effects were most prevalent (about 80%) among individuals who received Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and were least common among those who received Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines (21%-28%). When compared to the Sinopharm vaccines, the OxfordAstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Moderna vaccines were 4.51 times (95% CI: 2.53–8.04), 5.37 times (95% CI: 2.57–11.22), and 4.28 times (95% CI: 2.28–8.05) likelier to produce side effects. Furthermore, males, those over 50 years old, urban dwellers, smokers, and those with underlying health issues had a considerably increased risk of developing side effects. A lack of confidence in vaccines' efficacy and a substantial level of hesitancy in allowing children (age five years or over) and older people (70 years or over) to receive COVID-19 vaccines were also observed. Conclusion: Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are minimal, demonstrating their safety. Efforts should be made to disseminate such findings worldwide to increase vaccine uptake.

Background: The proliferation of vaccine misinformation on social media has seriously corrupted the public's confidence in vaccination. Proactively sharing provaccination messages on social media is a cost-effective way to enhance global vaccination rates and resist vaccine misinformation. However, few strategies for encouraging the public to proactively share vaccine-related knowledge on social media have been developed. Objective: This research examines the effect of value type (individual vs collective) and message framing (gain vs loss) on influenza vaccination intention (experiment 1) and the willingness to share provaccination messages (experiment 2) among Chinese adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim was to evaluate whether messages that emphasized collective value were more effective in increasing the willingness to share than messages that emphasized individual value. Methods: We enrolled 450 Chinese adults for experiment 1 (n=250, 55.6%) and experiment 2 (n=200, 44.4%). Participants were randomly assigned to individual-gain, individual-loss, collective-gain, or collective-loss conditions with regard to the message in each experiment using the online survey platform's randomization function. Experiment 1 also included a control group. The primary outcome was influenza vaccination intention in experiment 1 and the willingness to share provaccination messages in experiment 2. Results: The valid sample included 213 adults in experiment 1 (females: n=151, 70.9%; mean age 29 [SD 9] years; at least some college education: n=202, 94.8%; single: n=131, 61.5%) and 171 adults in experiment 2 (females: n=106, 62.0%; mean age 28 [SD 7] years; at least some college education: n=163, 95.3%; single: n=95, 55.6%). Influenza vaccination intention was stronger in the individual-value conditions than in the collective-value conditions (F3,166=4.96, P=.03, η2=0.03). The reverse result was found for the willingness to share provaccination messages (F3,165=6.87, P=.01, η²=0.04). Specifically, participants who received a message emphasizing collective value had a higher intention to share the message than participants who read a message emphasizing individual value (F3,165=6.87, P=.01, η²=0.04), and the perceived responsibility for message sharing played a mediating role (indirect effect=0.23, 95% lower limit confidence interval [LLCI] 0.41, 95% upper limit confidence interval [ULCI] 0.07). In addition, gain framing facilitated influenza vaccination intention more than loss framing (F3,166=5.96, P=.02, η2=0.04). However, experiment 2 did not find that message framing affected message-sharing willingness. Neither experiment found an interaction between value type and message framing. Conclusions: Strengthened individual value rather than collective value is more likely to persuade Chinese adults to vaccinate. However, these adults are more likely to share a message that emphasizes collective rather than individual value, and the perceived responsibility for message sharing plays a mediating role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzes how vaccine-opposed users on Instagram share anti-vaccine content despite facing growing moderation attempts by the platform. Through a thematic analysis of Instagram content (in-feed and ephemeral "stories") of a sample of vaccine-opposed Instagram users, we explore the observable tactics deployed by vaccine-opposed users in their attempts to avoid content moderation and amplify anti-vaccination content. Tactics range from lexical variations to encode vaccine-related keywords, to the creative use of Instagram features and affordances. The emergence of such tactics exists as a type of "folk theorization"—the cultivation of non-professional knowledge of how visibility on the platform works. Findings highlight the complications of content moderation as a route to minimizing misinformation, the consequences of algorithmic opacity and knowledge-building within problematic online communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misinformation has challenged the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination around the world. In 2021, professional bodies for several regulated occupations (including doctors and lawyers) initiated investigations into the conduct of members who engaged in vaccine misinformation, including on social media. This commentary discusses key controversies surrounding this novel disciplinary issue, with the focus on the legal profession in New Zealand and Australia. We consider the difficulties of defining "vaccine misinformation", differentiating between public and private social media use, giving proper scope to rights of free speech, and challenges in identifying financial conflicts of interest and unethical client solicitation practices (eg, profiting from spreading vaccine misinformation). The chilling effect upon freedom of expression when lawyers are disciplined for their social media posts that are deemed unscientific is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People may cling to false facts even in the face of updated and correct information. The present study confronted misconceptions about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and a novel, fictitious Zika vaccine. Two experiments are reported, examining misconceptions as motivated by a poor risk understanding (Experiment 1, N = 130) or the exposure to conspiracy theories (Experiment 2, N = 130). Each experiment featured a Misinformation condition, wherein participants were presented with fictitious stories containing some misinformation (Experiment 1) and rumours focused on conspiracy theories (Experiment 2) that were later retracted by public health experts and a No misinformation condition, containing no reference to misinformation and rumours. Across experiments, participants were more hesitant towards vaccines when exposed to stories including vaccine misinformation. Notwithstanding, our results suggest a positive impact of a trusted source communicating the scientific consensus about vaccines. Zika virus represents a particular case showing how missing information can easily evolve into misinformation. Implications for effective dissemination of information are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Fatima Cody Stanford reports financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health.

Social media platforms, including TikTok, have become influential sources of health information. However, they also present as potential sources for the spread of vaccine misinformation. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of measles-rubella (MR) vaccine-related contents on TikTok in Jordan and to analyze factors associated with vaccine misinformation. A systematic search for MR vaccine-related TikTok contents in Jordan was conducted using pre-defined keywords and a specified time range. Content metrics (likes, comments, shares, and saves) were collected while the content quality of health information was evaluated using a modified version of the DISCERN, a validated instrument by two expert raters. The average modified DISCERN score ranged from 1, denoting poor content, to 5, indicating excellent content. A total of 50 videos from 34 unique content creators formed the final study sample. The majority of MR vaccine-related content was created by lay individuals (61.8%), followed by TV/news websites/journalists (23.5%), and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (14.7%). The Cohen κ per modified DISCERN item was in the range of 0.579-0.808, p <0.001), indicating good to excellent agreement. The overall average modified DISCERN score was 2±1.2, while it was only 1.3±0.52 for lay individuals' content, which indicated poor content quality. For the normalized per number of followers for each source, content by lay individuals had a significantly higher number of likes, saves, and shares with p =0.009, 0.012, and 0.004, respectively. Vaccine misinformation was detected in 58.8% of the videos as follows: lay individuals (85.7%), TV/news websites/journalists (25.0%), and HCPs content had none ( p <0.001). Normalized per the number of followers for each source, videos flagged as having MR vaccine misinformation reached a higher number of likes, saves, and shares ( p =0.012, 0.016, and 0.003, respectively). In conclusion, substantial dissemination of TikTok MR vaccine-related misinformation in Jordan was detected. Rigorous fact-checking is warranted by the platform to address misinformation on TikTok, which is vital to improve trust in MR vaccination and ultimately protect public health., Competing Interests: All the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

• Google Trends was utilized to analyze search interest for terms related to COVID-19 misinformation, general misinformation, and access throughout the pandemic. • Search interest in these categories shifted in relation to events taking place throughout the pandemic. • The most commonly searched terms in each subgroup were: "Covid vaccine infertility", "Covid vaccine side effects", and "Covid vaccine appointment". • Google trends can be used to monitor trends in public attitudes and misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines and target education. Vaccine hesitancy remains a serious challenge for ending the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Digital media has played an immense role in the spread of information during the pandemic. One method to gauge public interest in COVID-19 related information is to examine patterns of online search queries. Google Trends (GT) was used to analyze results for search terms relating to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, information, and accessibility from October 1st, 2020 to May 27th, 2021. GT allows you to compare multiple queries at one time. The resultant relative search volumes (RSVs) range from 0 to 100. The search term and point in time on the graph that has the greatest search volume is given a score of 100 and all other terms and times are given values relative to that maximum. Search interest peaks were analyzed by subgroups (misinformation, information seeking, and access seeking) and across key time points throughout the pandemic. GT analysis revealed that search interest related to vaccine misinformation, general information, and access seeking changed in relation to events taking place throughout the pandemic. The most commonly searched terms in each subgroup were: "Covid vaccine infertility", "Covid vaccine side effects", and "Covid vaccine appointment". Searches related to misinformation peaked in December 2020. Search terms in the general information category peaked in April 2021. RSVs for access seeking terms peaked in March 2021 and have decreased since April 2021. Misinformation RSVs were highest after FDA authorization and have multiple repeated spikes after subsequent vaccine announcements. General information seeking terms peaked concurrently with increased vaccination uptake in the United States. Search interest has decreased with wider vaccine availability, despite many individuals in the United States remaining unvaccinated. GT can be used to monitor trends in public attitudes and misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines and further target education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: to identify factors associated with COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, including sources of information among residents of Maine. Methods: 148 study participants, recruited through community partners and primary care offices in Maine, completed an anonymous 15 item online survey. Recruitment and data collection occurred from May to September, 2021. Hesitancy was determined through a single question, "Will you get one of the COVID vaccines when it is offered to you?" Results: vaccine hesitant respondents were younger than not hesitant respondents (p = 0.01). Hesitant individuals were significantly more likely to report concerns regarding the speed of COVID-19 vaccine production, vaccine efficacy, and potential vaccine side effects (p < 0.05 for each). Hesitant individuals were also significantly more likely to have discussed vaccination with their primary physician (p = 0.04). Conclusions: overall, hesitant individuals are more likely to be younger and had less trust in information from government sources, but they sought input from primary care. They were also more concerned about efficacy, side effects, and the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. Primary care physicians are in key positions to address these concerns due to contact with individuals who need accurate information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccine hesitancy (the reluctance to accept recommended vaccines) is a complex issue that poses risk communication challenges for public health authorities and clinicians. Studies have shown that providing too much evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine-hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy-related beliefs and fears. The objective of this paper is to describe good practices in developing communication materials to address vaccine hesitancy. An inventory of vaccination communication materials in Canada was assessed according to the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Health Product Risk Communication Evaluation (2015). Many of the current communication products could be improved to better align with evidence-based risk communication best practices. Five best practices were identified. First, identify target audience and establish trust. Second, provide both the risks and benefits of vaccination, as most people are looking for balanced information. Third, give the facts before addressing the myths. Fourth, use visual aids. Fifth, test communication material prior to launch. Applying these best practices to current or future communication products will help vaccine providers (including physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, public health professionals) to develop communication materials that are sensitive to the complex ways that people process and value information and thus more likely to optimize vaccine uptake in their communities.

Our study examined how misinformation and other elements of social media messages affect antecedents to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescents. In 2017–2018, we randomly assigned a national sample of 1206 U.S. parents of adolescents to view one tweet using a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment. The 16 experimental tweets varied four messaging elements: misinformation (misinformation or not), source (person or organization), narrative style (storytelling or scientific data), and topic (effectiveness or safety). Parents reported their motivation to vaccinate (primary outcome), trust in social media content, and perceived risk about HPV-related diseases. Tweets without misinformation elicited higher HPV vaccine motivation than tweets with misinformation (25% vs. 5%, OR = 6.60, 95% CI:4.05, 10.75). Motivation was higher for tweets from organizations versus persons (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.47, 95% CI:1.52, 4.03) and about effectiveness versus safety (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.03, 95% CI:1.24, 3.30). Tweets with misinformation produced lower trust and higher perceived risk (both p <.01), with impact varying depending on source and topic. In conclusion, misinformation was the most potent social media messaging element. It may undermine progress in HPV vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: to identify factors associated with COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, including sources of information among residents of Maine. Methods: 148 study participants, recruited through community partners and primary care offices in Maine, completed an anonymous 15 item online survey. Recruitment and data collection occurred from May to September, 2021. Hesitancy was determined through a single question, “Will you get one of the COVID vaccines when it is offered to you?” Results: vaccine hesitant respondents were younger than not hesitant respondents (p = 0.01). Hesitant individuals were significantly more likely to report concerns regarding the speed of COVID-19 vaccine production, vaccine efficacy, and potential vaccine side effects (p < 0.05 for each). Hesitant individuals were also significantly more likely to have discussed vaccination with their primary physician (p = 0.04). Conclusions: overall, hesitant individuals are more likely to be younger and had less trust in information from government sources, but they sought input from primary care. They were also more concerned about efficacy, side effects, and the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. Primary care physicians are in key positions to address these concerns due to contact with individuals who need accurate information.

To understand the predominant topics of discussion, stance and associated language used on social media platforms relating to maternal vaccines in 15 countries over a six-month period. In 2019, the World Health Organisation prioritised vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat and recognized the role of viral misinformation on social media as propagating vaccine hesitancy. Maternal vaccination offers the potential to improve maternal and child health, and to reduce the risk of severe morbidity and mortality in pregnancy. Understanding the topics of discussion, stance and language used around maternal vaccines on social media can inform public health bodies on how to combat vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Social media data was extracted (Twitter, forums, blogs and comments) for six months from 15 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Panama, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom and United States). We used stance, discourse and topic analysis to provide insight into the most frequent and weighted keywords, hashtags and themes of conversation within and across countries. We exported a total of 19,192 social media posts in 16 languages obtained between 1st November 2018 and 30th April 2019. After screening all posts, 16,000 were included in analyses, while excluding retweets, 2,722 were annotated for sentiment. Main topics of discussion were the safety of the maternal influenza and pertussis vaccines. Discouraging posts were most common in Italy (44.9%), and the USA (30.8%). The content and stance of maternal vaccination posts from November 2018 to April 2019 differed across countries, however specific topics of discussion were not limited to geographical location. These discussions included the promotion of vaccination, involvement of pregnant women in vaccine research, and the trust and transparency of institutions. Future research should examine the relationship between stance (promotional, neutral, ambiguous, discouraging) online and maternal vaccination uptake in the respective regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Designing effective communication strategies for correcting vaccines misinformation requires an understanding of how the target group might react to information from different sources. The present study examined whether erroneous inferences about vaccination could be effectively corrected by a perceived credible (i.e. expert or trustworthy) source. Two experiments are reported using a standard continued influence paradigm, each featuring two correction conditions on vaccine misinformation. Participants were presented with a story containing a piece of information that was later retracted by a perceived credible or not so credible source. Experiment 1 showed that providing a correction reduced participants' use of the original erroneous information, yet the overall reliance on misinformation did not significantly differ between the low- and high-expertise correction groups. Experiment 2 revealed that a correction from a high-trustworthy source decreased participants' reliance on misinformation when making inferences; nonetheless, it did not positively affect the reported intent to vaccinate one's child. Overall, source trustworthiness was more relevant than source expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccine hesitancy (the reluctance to accept recommended vaccines) is a complex issue that poses risk communication challenges for public health authorities and clinicians. Studies have shown that providing too much evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine-hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy-related beliefs and fears. The objective of this paper is to describe good practices in developing communication materials to address vaccine hesitancy. An inventory of vaccination communication materials in Canada was assessed according to the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Health Product Risk Communication Evaluation (2015). Many of the current communication products could be improved to better align with evidence-based risk communication best practices. Five best practices were identified. First, identify target audience and establish trust. Second, provide both the risks and benefits of vaccination, as most people are looking for balanced information. Third, give the facts before addressing the myths. Fourth, use visual aids. Fifth, test communication material prior to launch. Applying these best practices to current or future communication products will help vaccine providers (including physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, public health professionals) to develop communication materials that are sensitive to the complex ways that people process and value information and thus more likely to optimize vaccine uptake in their communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chatbots enable users to have humanlike conversations on various topics and can vary widely in complexity and functionality. An area of research priority in chatbots is democratizing chatbots to all, removing barriers to entry, such as financial ones, to help make chatbots a possibility for the wider global population to improve access to information, help reduce the digital divide between nations, and improve areas of public good (eg, health communication). Chatbots in this space may help create the potential for improved health outcomes, potentially alleviating some of the burdens on health care providers and systems to be the sole voices of outreach to public health., Objective: This study explored the feasibility of developing a chatbot using approaches that are accessible in low- and middle-resource settings, such as using technology that is low cost, can be developed by nonprogrammers, and can be deployed over social media platforms to reach the broadest-possible audience without the need for a specialized technical team., Methods: This study is presented in 2 parts. First, we detailed the design and development of a chatbot, VWise, including the resources used and development considerations for the conversational model. Next, we conducted a case study of 33 participants who engaged in a pilot with our chatbot. We explored the following 3 research questions: (1) Is it feasible to develop and implement a chatbot addressing a public health issue with only minimal resources? (2) What is the participants' experience with using the chatbot? (3) What kinds of measures of engagement are observed from using the chatbot?, Results: A high level of engagement with the chatbot was demonstrated by the large number of participants who stayed with the conversation to its natural end (n=17, 52%), requested to see the free online resource, selected to view all information about a given concern, and returned to have a dialogue about a second concern (n=12, 36%)., Conclusions: This study explored the feasibility of and the design and development considerations for a chatbot, VWise. Our early findings from this initial pilot suggest that developing a functioning and low-cost chatbot is feasible, even in low-resource environments. Our results show that low-resource environments can enter the health communication chatbot space using readily available human and technical resources. However, despite these early indicators, many limitations exist in this study and further work with a larger sample size and greater diversity of participants is needed. This study represents early work on a chatbot in its virtual infancy. We hope this study will help provide those who feel chatbot access may be out of reach with a useful guide to enter this space, enabling more democratized access to chatbots for all., (©Leigh Powell, Radwa Nour, Randa Sleibi, Hanan Al Suwaidi, Nabil Zary. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 28.12.2023.)

The main objective of this study was to determine whether one of the most commonly employed pro-vaccination strategies based on the "myths vs. facts" format can be considered an effective tool to counter vaccines misinformation. Sixty parents were randomly presented with either a control message or a booklet confronting some common myths about vaccines with a number of facts. Beliefs in the autism/vaccines link and in vaccines side effects, along with intention to vaccinate one's child, were evaluated both immediately after the intervention and after a 7-day delay to reveal possible backfire effects. Data provided support for the existence of backfire effects associated with the use of the myths vs. facts format, with parents in this condition having stronger vaccine misconceptions over time compared with participants in the control condition. The myths vs. facts strategy proved to be ineffective. Efforts to counter vaccine misinformation should take into account the many variables that affect the parents' decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective COVID-19 vaccines have been available since early 2021 yet many Americans refuse or delayed uptake. As of mid-2022, still around 30% of US adults remain unvaccinated against COVID-19. The majority (81%) of these unvaccinated adults say they will "definitely not" be getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake is critical to reducing death and illness from the virus, as well as to inform future vaccine efforts, such as the more recent bivalent (omicron) booster., Objective: This study aimed to expand our understanding of psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We focus on both COVID-19-specific factors, such as COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, as well as more global personality attributes such as dogmatism, reactance, gender roles, political beliefs, and religiosity., Methods: We conducted a web-based survey in mid-2021 of a representative sample of 1376 adults measuring both COVID-19-specific beliefs and attitudes, as well as global personality attributes. COVID-19 vaccination status is reported at 3 levels: vaccinated; unvaccinated-may-get-it; unvaccinated-hard-no., Results: Our analyses focused on the correlation of COVID-19 vaccination status with 10 psychosocial attributes: COVID-19-specific conspiracy theory beliefs; COVID-19 vaccine misinformation; COVID-19-related Rapture beliefs; general antivaccination beliefs; trait reactance; trait dogmatism; belief in 2020 election fraud; belief in a QAnon conspiracy; health care system distrust; and identification with traditional gender roles. We used a multivariate analysis of covariance to examine mean differences across vaccine status groups for each of the correlates while holding constant the effects of age, gender, race, income, education, political party, and Evangelicalism. Across the 10 psychosocial correlates, several different response scales were used. To allow for comparison of effects across correlates, measures of effect size were computed by converting correlates to z scores and then examining adjusted mean differences in z scores between the groups. We found that all 10 psychosocial variables were significantly associated with vaccination status. After general antivaccination beliefs, COVID-19 misinformation beliefs and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs had the largest effect on vaccine uptake., Conclusions: The association of these psychosocial factors with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may help explain why vaccine uptake has not shifted much among the unvaccinated-hard-no group since vaccines became available. These findings deepen our understanding of those who remain resistant to getting vaccinated and can guide more effective tailored communications to reach them. Health communication professionals may apply lessons learned from countering related beliefs and personality attributes around issues such as climate change and other forms of vaccine hesitancy. For example, using motivational interviewing strategies that are equipped to handle resistance and provide correct information in a delicate manner that avoids reactance., (©Elizabeth Bacon, Lawrence An, Penny Yang, Sarah Hawley, M Lee Van Horn, Ken Resnicow. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 27.09.2023.)

This study investigated the efficacy of narratives in countering vaccine-related narrative misinformation on Facebook. Two narrative counter strategies to address misinformation about the safety of the MMR vaccine (i.e., personal stories of uneventful vaccinations where a parent talks about how their child was vaccinated and no injury happened to them, and narratives of anti-vax to pro-vax conversions, where a former anti-vaccine parent narrates their experience of their child getting sick with a vaccine-preventable disease and thus realizing the importance of vaccines) were compared to a non-narrative counter message (an infographic, in the case of the present study) in increasing belief in the counter, reducing vaccine misinformation, and increasing MMR vaccination intentions. Second, we tested a theoretically grounded model predicting MMR vaccination intentions and misinformation amplification likelihood, combining pre-existing issue-specific situational motivation in problem solving with perceived counter and misinformation source credibility and message effects. Implications for public relations theory are discussed. • Vaccine misinformation is often spread in the form of injury stories on Facebook. • In this study, narrative counters to such misinformation on Facebook were examined. • Public relations and narrative persuasion literatures are integrated. • Situational motivation and source credibility were two main predictors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: One of the primary reasons for hesitancy in taking COVID-19 vaccines is the fear of side effects. This study primarily aimed to inspect the potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines circulated in Bangladesh.Design and Settings.The study was based on a cross-sectional anonymous online survey conducted in December 2021 across Bangladesh.Participants.The study included consenting Bangladeshi individuals aged 12 and above who had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccines.Main Outcome.Analyses were carried out through exploratory analysis, Chi-square test, and logistic regression to investigate potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines., Results: A total of 1,180 vaccinated people participated in the study. Only 39.48% of the participants reported at least one side effect after receiving their COVID-19 vaccine. Injection-site pain, fever, headache, redness/swelling at the injection site, and lethargy were the most commonly reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and lasted 1-3 days. Side effects were most prevalent (about 80%) among individuals who received Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and were least common among those who received Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines (21%-28%). When compared to the Sinopharm vaccines, the OxfordAstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Moderna vaccines were 4.51 times (95% CI: 2.53-8.04), 5.37 times (95% CI: 2.57-11.22), and 4.28 times (95% CI: 2.28-8.05) likelier to produce side effects. Furthermore, males, those over 50 years old, urban dwellers, smokers, and those with underlying health issues had a considerably increased risk of developing side effects. A lack of confidence in vaccines' efficacy and a substantial level of hesitancy in allowing children (age five years or over) and older people (70 years or over) to receive COVID-19 vaccines were also observed., Conclusion: Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are minimal, demonstrating their safety. Efforts should be made to disseminate such findings worldwide to increase vaccine uptake., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: The proliferation of vaccine misinformation on social media has seriously corrupted the public's confidence in vaccination. Proactively sharing provaccination messages on social media is a cost-effective way to enhance global vaccination rates and resist vaccine misinformation. However, few strategies for encouraging the public to proactively share vaccine-related knowledge on social media have been developed., Objective: This research examines the effect of value type (individual vs collective) and message framing (gain vs loss) on influenza vaccination intention (experiment 1) and the willingness to share provaccination messages (experiment 2) among Chinese adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim was to evaluate whether messages that emphasized collective value were more effective in increasing the willingness to share than messages that emphasized individual value., Methods: We enrolled 450 Chinese adults for experiment 1 (n=250, 55.6%) and experiment 2 (n=200, 44.4%). Participants were randomly assigned to individual-gain, individual-loss, collective-gain, or collective-loss conditions with regard to the message in each experiment using the online survey platform's randomization function. Experiment 1 also included a control group. The primary outcome was influenza vaccination intention in experiment 1 and the willingness to share provaccination messages in experiment 2., Results: The valid sample included 213 adults in experiment 1 (females: n=151, 70.9%; mean age 29 [SD 9] years; at least some college education: n=202, 94.8%; single: n=131, 61.5%) and 171 adults in experiment 2 (females: n=106, 62.0%; mean age 28 [SD 7] years; at least some college education: n=163, 95.3%; single: n=95, 55.6%). Influenza vaccination intention was stronger in the individual-value conditions than in the collective-value conditions (F 3,166 =4.96, P=.03, η 2 =0.03). The reverse result was found for the willingness to share provaccination messages (F 3,165 =6.87, P=.01, η 2 =0.04). Specifically, participants who received a message emphasizing collective value had a higher intention to share the message than participants who read a message emphasizing individual value (F 3,165 =6.87, P=.01, η 2 =0.04), and the perceived responsibility for message sharing played a mediating role (indirect effect=0.23, 95% lower limit confidence interval [LLCI] 0.41, 95% upper limit confidence interval [ULCI] 0.07). In addition, gain framing facilitated influenza vaccination intention more than loss framing (F 3,166 =5.96, P=.02, η 2 =0.04). However, experiment 2 did not find that message framing affected message-sharing willingness. Neither experiment found an interaction between value type and message framing., Conclusions: Strengthened individual value rather than collective value is more likely to persuade Chinese adults to vaccinate. However, these adults are more likely to share a message that emphasizes collective rather than individual value, and the perceived responsibility for message sharing plays a mediating role., (©Chunye Fu, Xiaokang Lyu, Mingdi Mi. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 04.10.2022.)

Background: Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, have a role in spreading anti-vaccine opinion and misinformation. Vaccines have been an important component of managing the COVID-19 pandemic, so content that discourages vaccination is generally seen as a concern to public health. However, not all negative information about vaccines is explicitly anti-vaccine, and some of it may be an important part of open communication between public health experts and the community., Objective: This research aimed to determine the frequency of negative COVID-19 vaccine information on Twitter in the first 4 months of 2021., Methods: We manually coded 7306 tweets sampled from a large sampling frame of tweets related to COVID-19 and vaccination collected in early 2021. We also coded the geographic location and mentions of specific vaccine producers. We compared the prevalence of anti-vaccine and negative vaccine information over time by author type, geography (United States, United Kingdom, and Canada), and vaccine developer., Results: We found that 1.8% (131/7306) of tweets were anti-vaccine, but 21% (1533/7306) contained negative vaccine information. The media and government were common sources of negative vaccine information but not anti-vaccine content. Twitter users from the United States generated the plurality of negative vaccine information; however, Twitter users in the United Kingdom were more likely to generate negative vaccine information. Negative vaccine information related to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was the most common, particularly in March and April 2021., Conclusions: Overall, the volume of explicit anti-vaccine content on Twitter was small, but negative vaccine information was relatively common and authored by a breadth of Twitter users (including government, medical, and media sources). Negative vaccine information should be distinguished from anti-vaccine content, and its presence on social media could be promoted as evidence of an effective communication system that is honest about the potential negative effects of vaccines while promoting the overall health benefits. However, this content could still contribute to vaccine hesitancy if it is not properly contextualized., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (©Niko Yiannakoulias, J Connor Darlington, Catherine E Slavik, Grant Benjamin. Originally published in JMIR Infodemiology (https://infodemiology.jmir.org), 29.08.2022.)

Anti-vaccine content is rapidly propagated via social media, fostering vaccine hesitancy, while pro-vaccine content has not replicated the opponent's successes. Despite this disparity in the dissemination of anti- and pro-vaccine posts, linguistic features that facilitate or inhibit the propagation of vaccine-related content remain less known. Moreover, most prior machine-learning algorithms classified social-media posts into binary categories (e.g., misinformation or not) and have rarely tackled a higher-order classification task based on divergent perspectives about vaccines (e.g., anti-vaccine, pro-vaccine, and neutral). Our objectives are (1) to identify sets of linguistic features that facilitate and inhibit the propagation of vaccine-related content and (2) to compare whether anti-vaccine, provaccine, and neutral tweets contain either set more frequently than the others. To achieve these goals, we collected a large set of social media posts (over 120 million tweets) between Nov. 15 and Dec. 15, 2021, coinciding with the Omicron variant surge. A two-stage framework was developed using a fine-tuned BERT classifier, demonstrating over 99 and 80 percent accuracy for binary and ternary classification. Finally, the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count text analysis tool was used to count linguistic features in each classified tweet. Our regression results show that anti-vaccine tweets are propagated (i.e., retweeted), while pro-vaccine tweets garner passive endorsements (i.e., favorited). Our results also yielded the two sets of linguistic features as facilitators and inhibitors of the propagation of vaccine-related tweets. Finally, our regression results show that anti-vaccine tweets tend to use the facilitators, while pro-vaccine counterparts employ the inhibitors. These findings and algorithms from this study will aid public health officials' efforts to counteract vaccine misinformation, thereby facilitating the delivery of preventive measures during pandemics and epidemics.

Background: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of COVID-19-related misinformation has spread and been amplified online. The spread of misinformation can influence COVID-19 beliefs and protective actions, including vaccine hesitancy. Belief in vaccine misinformation is associated with lower vaccination rates and higher vaccine resistance. Attitudinal inoculation is a preventative approach to combating misinformation and disinformation, which leverages the power of narrative, rhetoric, values, and emotion., Objective: This study seeks to test inoculation messages in the form of short video messages to promote resistance against persuasion by COVID-19 vaccine misinformation., Methods: We designed a series of 30-second inoculation videos and conducted a quasi-experimental study to test the use of attitudinal inoculation in a population of individuals who were unvaccinated (N=1991). The 3 intervention videos were distinguished by their script design, with intervention video 1 focusing on narrative/rhetorical ("Narrative") presentation of information, intervention video 2 focusing on delivering a fact-based information ("Fact"), and intervention video 3 using a hybrid design ("Hybrid"). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to compare the main effect of the intervention on the 3 outcome variables: ability to recognize misinformation tactics ("Recognize"), willingness to share misinformation ("Share"), and willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine ("Willingness")., Results: There were significant effects across all 3 outcome variables comparing inoculation intervention groups to controls. For the Recognize outcome, the ability to recognize rhetorical strategies, there was a significant intervention group effect (P<.001). For the Share outcome, support for sharing the mis- and disinformation, the intervention group main effect was statistically significant (P=.02). For the Willingness outcome, there was a significant intervention group effect; intervention groups were more willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to controls (P=.01)., Conclusions: Across all intervention groups, inoculated individuals showed greater resistance to misinformation than their noninoculated counterparts. Relative to those who were not inoculated, inoculated participants showed significantly greater ability to recognize and identify rhetorical strategies used in misinformation, were less likely to share false information, and had greater willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Attitudinal inoculation delivered through short video messages should be tested in public health messaging campaigns to counter mis- and disinformation., (©Rachael Piltch-Loeb, Max Su, Brian Hughes, Marcia Testa, Beth Goldberg, Kurt Braddock, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Vanessa Maturo, Elena Savoia. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 20.06.2022.)

Enormous hope in the efficacy of vaccines became recently a successful reality in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy, fueled by exposure to social media misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines became a major hurdle. Therefore, it is essential to automatically detect where misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on social media is spread and what kind of misinformation is discussed, such that inoculation interventions can be delivered at the right time and in the right place, in addition to interventions designed to address vaccine hesitancy. This paper is addressing the first step in tackling hesitancy against COVID-19 vaccines, namely the automatic detection of known misinformation about the vaccines on Twitter, the social media platform that has the highest volume of conversations about COVID-19 and its vaccines. We present CoVaxLies, a new dataset of tweets judged relevant to several misinformation targets about COVID-19 vaccines on which a novel method of detecting misinformation was developed. Our method organizes CoVaxLies in a Misinformation Knowledge Graph as it casts misinformation detection as a graph link prediction problem. The misinformation detection method detailed in this paper takes advantage of the link scoring functions provided by several knowledge embedding methods. The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of this method when compared with classification-based methods, widely used currently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination roll-out because of the high occupational risk. Vaccine trials excluded individuals who were trying to conceive and those who are pregnant and lactating, necessitating vaccine decision-making in the absence of data specific to this population., Objective: This study aimed to determine the initial attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy-capable healthcare workers by reproductive status and occupational exposure., Study Design: We performed a structured survey distributed via social media of US-based healthcare workers involved in patient care since March 2020 who were pregnancy-capable (biologic female sex without history of sterilization or hysterectomy) from January 8, 2021 to January 31, 2021. Participants were asked about their desire to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and their perceived safety of the COVID-19 vaccine using 5-point Likert items with 1 corresponding to "I strongly don't want the vaccine" or "very unsafe for me" and 5 corresponding to "I strongly want the vaccine" or "very safe for me." We categorized participants into the following 2 groups: (1) reproductive intent (preventing pregnancy vs attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, or currently lactating), and (2) perceived COVID-19 occupational risk (high vs low). We used descriptive statistics to characterize the respondents and their attitudes about the vaccine. Comparisons between reproductive and COVID-19 risk groups were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests., Results: Our survey included 11,405 pregnancy-capable healthcare workers: 51.3% were preventing pregnancy (n=5846) and 48.7% (n=5559) were attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, and/or lactating. Most respondents (n=8394, 73.6%) had received a vaccine dose at the time of survey completion. Most participants strongly desired vaccination (75.3%) and very few were strongly averse (1.5%). Although the distribution of responses was significantly different between respondents preventing pregnancy and those attempting conception or were pregnant and/or lactating and also between respondents with a high occupational risk and those with a lower occupational risk of COVID-19, the effect sizes were small and the distribution was the same for each group (median, 5; interquartile range, 4-5)., Conclusion: Most of the healthcare workers desired vaccination. Negative feelings toward vaccination were uncommon but were significantly higher among those attempting pregnancy and those who are pregnant and lactating and also among those with a lower perceived occupational risk of contracting COVID-19, although the effect size was small. Understanding healthcare workers' attitudes toward vaccination may help guide interventions to improve vaccine education and uptake in the general population., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Social media vaccine misinformation can negatively influence vaccine attitudes. It is urgent to develop communication approaches to reduce the misinformation's impact. This study aimed to test the effects of fact-checking labels for misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. An online survey experiment with 1198 participants recruited from a U.S. national sample was conducted in 2018. Participants were randomly assigned to six conditions: misinformation control, or fact-checking label conditions attributed to algorithms, news media, health institutions, research universities, or fact-checking organizations. We analyzed differences in vaccine attitudes between the fact-checking label and control conditions. Further, we compared perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the five categories of fact-checking sources. Fact-checking labels attached to misinformation posts made vaccine attitudes more positive compared to the misinformation control condition (P =.003, Cohen's d= 0.21). Conspiracy ideation moderated the effect of the labels on vaccine attitudes (P =.02). Universities and health institutions were rated significantly higher on source expertise than other sources. Mediation analyses showed labels attributed to universities and health institutions indirectly resulted in more positive attitudes than other sources through perceived expertise. Exposure to fact-checking labels on misinformation can generate more positive attitudes toward vaccines in comparison to exposure to misinformation. Incorporating labels from trusted universities and health institutions on social media platforms is a promising direction for addressing the vaccine misinformation problem. This points to the necessity for closer collaboration between public health and research institutions and social media companies to join efforts in addressing the current misinformation threat. • An online survey experiment to promote vaccine attitude on social media. • The effects of fact-checking label on vaccine misinformation were tested. • The effects of 5 categories of fact-checking label sources were compared. • Fact-checking label on misinformation made vaccine attitude more positive. • Universities and health institutions were rated of higher source expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cervical cancer, caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, is the leading cause of female cancer deaths in South Africa. In 2014, the South African National Department of Health introduced a free public sector school-based HPV vaccination programme, targeting grade 4 girls aged ≥9 years. However, private sector school girls receive HPV vaccination through their healthcare providers at cost. This study investigated HPV vaccination knowledge, attitudes and practices of caregivers of girls aged ≥9 years in grades 4-7 attending South African private schools. Methods: A link to an online survey was circulated to caregivers via an email sent to school principals of all private schools in four provinces enrolling girls in grades 4-7. Following a poor post-reminder response, a paid Facebook survey-linked advert targeting South African Facebook users aged ≥25 years nationally was run for 4 days, and placed on the South African Vaccination and Immunisation Centre's Facebook page for 20 days. Results: Of 615 respondents, 413 provided HPV vaccination data and 455 completed the knowledge and attitudes tests. Most (76.5%) caregivers had good knowledge and 45.3% had positive attitudes. Of their daughters, 19.4% had received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine. Of caregivers of unvaccinated girls, 44.3% and 41.1%, respectively were willing to vaccinate their daughters if vaccination was offered free and at their school. Caregivers of unvaccinated girls were more likely [odds ratio (OR): 3.8] to have been influenced by "other" influences (mainly online articles and anecdotal vaccine injury reports). Of caregivers influenced by their healthcare providers, caregivers of unvaccinated girls were more likely (OR: 0.2) to be influenced by alternative medical practitioners. Caregivers of vaccinated girls were more likely to have good knowledge (OR: 3.6) and positive attitudes (OR: 5.2). Having good knowledge strongly predicted (OR: 2.8) positive attitudes. Having negative attitudes strongly predicted (OR: 0.2) girls being unvaccinated. Conclusion: Providing free school-based HPV vaccination in the private sector may not increase HPV vaccination coverage to an optimal level. Since misinformation was the main driver of negative attitudes resulting in <20% of girls being vaccinated, an advocacy campaign targeting all stakeholders is urgently needed., Competing Interests: The South African Vaccination and Immunisation Centre, and the Network for Education and Support in Immunisation, receive unrestricted educational grants from the vaccine industry., (Copyright © 2021 Milondzo, Meyer, Dochez and Burnett.)

Skepticism and misinformation relating to vaccines is not new. The benefits of all our present routinely used vaccines outweigh any risks. In relatively recent times there has been a 'war on science' and relating to this, is the present antivaccine movement. Today, social media is a major contributor to vaccine misinformation. A recent Gallup poll noted that public support for vaccines today is significantly lower than it was in 2001. Social scientists have presented the problem of the antivaccine movement quite well; but mechanisms for addressing it are far from clear. We suggest that physicians and other health care workers should not use social media for vaccine messages. A long-term approach would be to introduce science/epidemiological education in grade school and high school as well as in college., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society and the Royal Society of Biology.)