Vaccine Noncompliance and Communications: Anti-Vaccine Dynamics, MMR Outbreaks and Messaging

"Despite the importance of this issue, little research has been done on how newer forms of technology and communication, including social media or video-sharing sites, influence health decision-making. And there are basic questions about the effectiveness of traditional public health campaigns."

This resource includes a summary and synopsis of recent research on immunisation and communication issues focused on topics such as anti-vaccine information, trust, and attitudes, as well as media/analysis tips. It is provided by the United States (US)' Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, where the Journalist's Resource project examines news topics through a research lens, in order to identify scholarly materials that may be relevant to other media practitioners, bloggers, educators, students, and general readers.

Here, John Wihbey cites research that has been carried out around the world focused on communication to address vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), polio, and others. He connects that research to possible scenarios in the US, should patterns like measles outbreaks in Europe be repeated. ("Since 2006 significant measles outbreaks have occurred in Bulgaria, France, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey and other countries, often beginning with a small number of infections that rapidly ballooned into a large number of cases.") Wihbey notes that, whereas in other countries, such as Pakistan and Syria (where efforts to quell the spread of wild poliovirus are hampered by underlying problems such as conflict, making vaccination difficult), the US has to deal primarily with one challenge: widespread misinformation. This can lead to "noncompliance". Wihbey explains that, according to researchers, the beginning of this misinformation problem dates back to 1998, "when a now-discredited scientific paper was published in Britain linking vaccines to autism, a link that was proven entirely false and even labeled 'fraudulent.' A number of activists and some celebrities have adopted prominent anti-vaccine positions, and media and entertainment outlets have provided a platform for some of their views."

Wihbey then culls out the central findings of the paper (available by subscription only) "Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial," Pediatrics, March 2014. A web-based national (US) survey of nearly 1,800 parents involved testing common public health communications strategies to promote vaccination: "(1) correcting misinformation, (2) presenting information on disease risks, (3) using dramatic narratives, or (4) displaying visuals to make those risks more salient or accessible." One finding, according to Wihbey: "The data indicate that 'pro-vaccine messages do not always work as intended and that the effectiveness of those messages may vary depending on parental attitudes toward vaccines.' In fact, there was “little evidence that messages emphasizing the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases were effective in promoting vaccination intent."

The resource concludes with links to related research (many available by subscription only) that highlight the fact that, per Wihbey, "[c]orrecting misinformation is a significant challenge because of certain deep cognitive biases and processes."

Clicking on the tab at the link below titled "Media/Analysis Tips" leads to a page for journalists that includes a series of questions such as "How could the findings [of the study cited above, "Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial"] be misreported or misinterpreted by a reporter? In other words, what are the difficulties in conveying the data accurately? Give an example of a faulty headline or story lead."