A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation. Issue 5 (27th January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Whitehead, Hannah S.; French, Clare E.; Caldwell, Deborah M.; Letley, Louise; Mounier-Jack, Sandra
• Is Part Of: Vaccine. Volume 41:Issue 5(2023)
• Page Start: 1018
• Page End: 1034
• Publication Date: 2023-01-27
• Subjects: Vaccine hesitancy -- Vaccine acceptance -- Misinformation -- Disinformation -- Communication strategies; Vaccines -- Periodicals; 615.372
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.059
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-410X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Misinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2). Methods: We searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2). Results: Of 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results. Conclusion: This review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.