Science Communication Training for Vaccine Hesitancy
Recruiting in Palo Alto (17 mi)
+3 other locations
Age: 18+
Sex: Any
Travel: May Be Covered
Time Reimbursement: Varies
Trial Phase: Academic
Recruiting
Sponsor: Marina Del Rios
Disqualifiers: Under 18, Not bilingual, others
No Placebo Group
Trial Summary
What is the purpose of this trial?Dime La VerDAD is an innovative social media capacity-building program that empowers promotores de salud to debunk vaccine misinformation through the use of personal narratives on social media. The core of the implementation strategy consists of augmenting training and self-efficacy for natural community champions, "promotores de salud" from the Hispanic community as trusted messengers to debunk vaccination misinformation. The study will leverage existing community relationships in Chicago and a first of its kind misinformation curriculum to debunk misinformation in communities served by participating promotores de salud. Dime La VerDAD (Verify, Debunk, and Disseminate) is an innovative social media capacity-building program based on theoretical frameworks related to health communication that empowers promotores de salud to debunk vaccine misinformation through the use of personal narratives on social media. This mixed methods study will use a rigorous stepped wedge design to 1) deliver a scalable program of science communicators using an adapted curriculum grounded in infodemiology, 2) evaluate how debunking misinformation is perceived on social media, and 3) discern how use of personal narratives to enhance science communication can lead to changes in opinions and behavior (vaccination rates) about COVID and influenza vaccines among Chicago's predominantly Hispanic communities.
Will I have to stop taking my current medications?
The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.
What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Dime La VerDAD: Verify, Debunk, and Disseminate for addressing vaccine hesitancy?
Research shows that highlighting agreement among medical experts about vaccine safety can reduce public concern and misperceptions, which supports the idea that clear communication can help address vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, using strong, clear recommendations from healthcare providers has been shown to increase vaccine acceptance.
12345Is the Science Communication Training for Vaccine Hesitancy safe for participants?
There is no specific safety data available for the Science Communication Training for Vaccine Hesitancy, but the research does not indicate any safety concerns related to participating in communication training programs.
26789How is the treatment Dime La VerDAD different from other treatments for vaccine hesitancy?
Dime La VerDAD is unique because it focuses on training individuals in science communication to address vaccine hesitancy by verifying facts, debunking myths, and disseminating accurate information. Unlike other approaches that may rely solely on providing evidence, this treatment emphasizes building trust and understanding through effective communication strategies.
4561011Eligibility Criteria
This trial is for 'promotores de salud' (community health workers) from the Hispanic community in Chicago. They should be interested in using social media to debunk vaccine misinformation by sharing personal narratives. The goal is to find trusted messengers within the community who can effectively communicate about vaccines.Inclusion Criteria
Have a social media presence (personal or work-related)
Provide services in at least one of the priority zip codes 60639, 60651, 60623, 60608, 60629, 60632 selected as priority areas in the Protect Chicago Plus program
I am 18 years old or older.
+1 more
Exclusion Criteria
I do not want to use social media.
Do not provide services in the included zip codes
Plans to stop working as a 'promotor' before spring of 2027 (end of data collection planned)
+2 more
Trial Timeline
Screening
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial
2-4 weeks
Baseline Period
Initial baseline period before rollout of the intervention at seven distinct predominantly Hispanic community areas in Chicago
1 year
Intervention
Promotores de salud receive a tailored curriculum on how to debunk misinformation and create infographics and media as well as incorporate their personal narratives into social media posts
1-3 years
Follow-up
Participants are monitored for changes in opinions and behavior regarding vaccination after the intervention
6 months
Participant Groups
The Dime La VerDAD program tests a science communication curriculum designed to empower promotores de salud. It aims to enhance their ability to counteract vaccine misinformation on social media through personal stories, using a stepped wedge design study.
4Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Active Control
Group I: Experimental: Cohort 3 participation in science communication curriculumExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Promotores de salud servicing three geographically distinct community areas out of the seven selected for participation in this study will receive a tailored curriculum on how to debunk misinformation and create infographics and media as well as incorporate their personal narratives into social media posts for their communities. The core of the implementation strategy consists of augmenting training and self-efficacy for natural community champions, "promotores de salud" from the Hispanic community as trusted messengers to debunk vaccination misinformation.
Group II: Experimental: Cohort 2 participation in science communication curriculumExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Promotores de salud servicing two geographically adjacent community areas out of the seven selected for participation in this study will receive a tailored curriculum on how to debunk misinformation and create infographics and media as well as incorporate their personal narratives into social media posts for their communities. The core of the implementation strategy consists of augmenting training and self-efficacy for natural community champions, "promotores de salud" from the Hispanic community as trusted messengers to debunk vaccination misinformation.
Group III: Experimental: Cohort 1 participation in science communication curriculumExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Promotores de salud servicing two geographically adjacent community areas out of the seven selected for participation in this study will receive a tailored curriculum on how to debunk misinformation and create infographics and media as well as incorporate their personal narratives into social media posts for their communities. The core of the implementation strategy consists of augmenting training and self-efficacy for natural community champions, "promotores de salud" from the Hispanic community as trusted messengers to debunk vaccination misinformation.
Group IV: Control: One year baseline periodActive Control1 Intervention
Initial baseline period before rollout of the intervention at seven distinct predominantly Hispanic community areas in Chicago.
Find a Clinic Near You
Research Locations NearbySelect from list below to view details:
University of IowaIowa City, IA
University of ChicagoChicago, IL
University of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI
Rush UniversityChicago, IL
Loading ...
Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?
Marina Del RiosLead Sponsor
University of ChicagoLead Sponsor
Tanoma ConsultingCollaborator
University of MichiganCollaborator
Rush University Medical CenterCollaborator
Bedford Research Corporation, Inc.Collaborator
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)Collaborator
University of IowaCollaborator
References
How health care providers should address vaccine hesitancy in the clinical setting: Evidence for presumptive language in making a strong recommendation. [2021]Vaccine hesitancy occurs throughout the world and can result in poor vaccine uptake and vaccine-preventable disease-outbreaks. Vaccine hesitancy dates back to the days of Edward Jenner and the smallpox vaccine. It persists despite the preponderance of evidence supporting vaccine safety and effectiveness. Studies show even among parents of well-vaccinated children that 15-35% of those parents are vaccine-hesitant. Studies have failed to show the efficacy of educational interventions, and, indeed, a number of studies of educational interventions show a contrarian effect leaving the vaccine-hesitant more entrenched in their views. Still dozens of studies support health care provider recommendation as a major factor in achieving high rates of vaccine uptake. Furthermore, studies find those recommendations perceived as stronger are more effective than those perceived as weaker. What makes for a stronger recommendation? Several observational studies indicate that presumptive, announcement language as contrasted with participatory, conversational language makes for a stronger more effective recommendation. Several trials now demonstrate that health care providers and practices can implement this language and obtain higher vaccination uptake. The authors recommend the practice be adopted as a routine practice in the clinical setting for all vaccinations.
Identification of preliminary core outcome domains for communication about childhood vaccination: An online Delphi survey. [2022]Communication interventions for childhood vaccination are promising strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, but current research is limited by the outcomes measured. Most studies measure only vaccination-related outcomes, with minimal consideration of vaccine hesitancy-relevant intermediate outcomes. This impedes understanding of which interventions or elements are effective. It is also unknown which outcomes are important to the range of stakeholders affected by vaccine hesitancy. Outcome selection shapes the evidence base, informing future interventions and trials, and should reflect stakeholder priorities. Therefore, our aim was to identify which outcome domains (i.e. broad outcome categories) are most important to different stakeholders, identifying preliminary core outcome domains to inform evaluation of three common vaccination communication types: (i) communication to inform or educate, (ii) remind or recall, and (iii) enhance community ownership.
Measuring vaccine acceptance and knowledge within health professions education. [2022]Recent rises in the incidence of vaccine-preventable illnesses and suboptimal vaccine acceptance are considered a consequence of accumulating misinformation. Evidence-based approaches to patient-provider communication are key to addressing vaccine hesitancy.
Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment. [2018]A substantial minority of American adults continue to hold influential misperceptions about childhood vaccine safety. Growing public concern and refusal to vaccinate poses a serious public health risk. Evaluations of recent pro-vaccine health communication interventions have revealed mixed results (at best). This study investigated whether highlighting consensus among medical scientists about childhood vaccine safety can lower public concern, reduce key misperceptions about the discredited autism-vaccine link and promote overall support for vaccines.
Optimizing communication material to address vaccine hesitancy. [2020]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.
Communicating vaccine science to the public. [2016]Communicating science to the public is not always a straightforward process. In the case of vaccines, fear and lack of knowledge makes it even more challenging. We present some suggestions on how to defend the methods and fruits of scientific investigation to the public: 1) stand up for science, even if it not an easy task, 2) remember that no venue it too small, 3) don't let bad information go unchallenged, 4) don't assume other people are doing it, they are not and 5) remember that scientist have a responsibility to the public.
Debunking vaccination myths: strong risk negations can increase perceived vaccination risks. [2018]Information about risks is often contradictory, especially in the health domain. A vast amount of bizarre information on vaccine-adverse events (VAE) can be found on the Internet; most are posted by antivaccination activists. Several actors in the health sector struggle against these statements by negating claimed risks with scientific explanations. The goal of the present work is to find optimal ways of negating risk to decrease risk perceptions.
User preferences for a mobile application to report adverse events following vaccination. [2020]The passive surveillance system is an important tool in pharmacovigilance of vaccines. However, reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) post-marketing has limitations regarding under-reporting, biased reports and lack of exposure data resulting in imprecise estimates. New mobile application technology may provide an opportunity for an enhanced surveillance. A pre-requisite for the use of new app-based technology is to identify practical challenges and end users' preferences for design of app-features. The objectives were (i) to investigate the recruitment and feasibility of an app-based study in Germany, (ii) to assess individuals' motivation to participate in such a study and (iii) to identify app-features for reporting AEFI. We conducted a cross-sectional study among employees of a financial institution who attended the occupational health office during the seasonal influenza vaccination in November 2017. Participants tested feasibility and assessed an app prototype for AEFI reporting by using a case vignette and a questionnaire. Of the 153 attending employees, 65 (42%) agreed to participate and returned the questionnaire. Twenty-three (63%) rated the experience of reporting AEFI with the app prototype to be positive. Among three features offered for gamification, collecting points was most frequently chosen (n=22, 34%). The main reason for declining participation was the apprehension about data protection (n=28, 43%). Results suggest that the app-based technology was well accepted and is a suitable supplement for AEFI reporting and in our study. A convincing data protection concept is likely to enhance acceptability of such a system.
Establishing a taxonomy of potential hazards associated with communicating medical science in the age of disinformation. [2021]Disinformation on medical matters has become an increasing public health concern. Public engagement by scientists, clinicians and patient advocates can contribute towards public understanding of medicine. However, depth of feeling on many issues (notably vaccination and cancer) can lead to adverse reactions for those communicating medical science, including vexatious interactions and targeted campaigns. Our objective in this work is to establish a taxonomy of common negative experiences encountered by those communicating medical science, and suggest guidelines so that they may be circumvented.
Reducing vaccine hesitancy by explaining vaccine science. [2023]Vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic remained a problem long after mRNA vaccines became available. This may be due in part to misunderstandings about the vaccines, arising from complexities of the science involved. Two experiments, conducted on unvaccinated Americans at two periods postvaccine rollout in 2021, demonstrated that providing explanations, expressed in everyday language, and correcting known misunderstandings, reduced vaccine hesitancy compared to a no-information control group. Four explanations addressing misunderstandings about mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness were tested in Experiment 1 (n = 3,787). Some included expository text while others included refutational text, explicitly stating and refuting the misunderstanding. Vaccine effectiveness statistics were expressed either as text or an icon array. Although all four explanations reduced vaccine hesitancy, the refutational format of those addressing vaccine safety (explaining the mRNA mechanism and mild side effects) was the most effective. These two explanations were retested individually and jointly in Experiment 2 (n = 1,476) later in the summer of 2021. Again, vaccine hesitancy was significantly reduced by all explanations despite differences in political ideology, trust, and prior attitudes. These results suggest that nontechnical explanations of critical issues in vaccine science can reduce vaccine hesitancy, especially when accompanied by refutational text. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Science Communication Training Imparts Confidence and Influences Public Engagement Activity. [2023]The impacts of science are felt across all socio-ecological levels, ranging from the individual to societal. In order to adapt or respond to scientific discoveries, novel technologies, or biomedical or environmental challenges, a fundamental understanding of science is necessary. However, antiscientific rhetoric, mistrust in science, and the dissemination of misinformation hinder the promotion of science as a necessary and beneficial component of our world. Scientists can promote scientific literacy by establishing dialogues with nonexperts, but they may find a lack of formal training as a barrier to public engagement. To address this, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) launched the Art of Science Communication course in 2015 in order to provide scientists at all career stages with introductory science communication training. In 2020, we conducted a retrospective survey of former participants to evaluate how the course had impacted participants' science communication behaviors and their confidence engaging with nonexperts, as well as other benefits to their professional development. We found that scientists were significantly more likely to communicate with nonexpert audiences following the course compared to before (77% versus 51%; P < 0.0001). In addition, quantitative and qualitative data suggested that scientists were more confident in their ability to communicate science after completing the course (median of 8, standard deviation [SD] of 0.98 versus median of 5, SD of 1.57; P < 0.0001). Qualitative responses from participants supported quantitative findings. This suggested that the Art of Science Communication course is highly effective at improving the confidence of scientists to engage with the public and other nonexpert audiences regardless of career status. These data-driven perspectives provide a rationale for the implementation of broadly accessible science communication training programs that promote public engagement with science.