scholarly journals COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments: Analyses of Comments from Social Media

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1530
Author(s):  
Li Ping Wong ◽  
Yulan Lin ◽  
Haridah Alias ◽  
Sazaly Abu Bakar ◽  
Qinjian Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Health Messages ◽  
Vaccination Decision ◽  
Duration Of Protection

Purpose: This study analyzed the insights and sentiments of COVID-19 anti-vaccine comments from Instagram feeds and Facebook postings. The sentiments related to the acceptance and effectiveness of the vaccines that were on the verge of being made available to the public. Patients and methods: The qualitative software QSR-NVivo 10 was used to manage, code, and analyse the data. Results: The analyses uncovered several major issues concerning COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The production of the COVID-19 vaccine at an unprecedented speed evoked the fear of skipping steps that would compromise vaccine safety. The unknown long-term effects and duration of protection erode confidence in taking the vaccines. There were also persistent concerns with regard to vaccine compositions that could be harmful or contain aborted foetal cells. The rate of COVID-19 death was viewed as low. Many interpreted the 95% effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine as insufficient. Preference for immunity gains from having an infection was viewed as more effective. Peer-reviewed publication-based data were favoured as a source of trust in vaccination decision-making. Conclusions: The anti-COVID-19 vaccine sentiments found in this study provide important insights for the formulation of public health messages to instill confidence in the vaccines.

scholarly journals Vaccine hesitancy: evidence from an adverse events following immunization database, and the role of cognitive biases

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Azarpanah ◽  
Mohsen Farhadloo ◽  
Rustam Vahidov ◽  
Louise Pilote
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Vaccine Acceptance ◽  
Vaccination Decision ◽  
Vaccine Information

Abstract Background Vaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process. Methods First, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM). Results Our results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people’s vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions This paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.

scholarly journals Digital Discretion: Unpacking Human and Technological Agency in Automated Decision Making in Sweden’s Social Services

2020 ◽  
pp. 089443932098043
Author(s):  
Agneta Ranerup ◽  
Helle Zinner Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
The Public ◽  
Automated Decision Making ◽  
New Situation

The introduction of robotic process automation (RPA) into the public sector has changed civil servants’ daily life and practices. One of these central practices in the public sector is discretion. The shift to a digital mode of discretion calls for an understanding of the new situation. This article presents an empirical case where automated decision making driven by RPA has been implemented in social services in Sweden. It focuses on the aspirational values and effects of the RPA in social services. Context, task, and activities are captured by a detailed analysis of humans and technology. This research finds that digitalization in social services has a positive effect on civil servants’ discretionary practices mainly in terms of their ethical, democratic, and professional values. The long-term effects and the influence on fair and uniform decision making also merit future research. In addition, the article finds that a human–technology hybrid actor redefines social assistance practices. Simplifications are needed to unpack the automated decision-making process because of the technological and theoretical complexities.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Pandemic Optimism and Vaccine Willingness among an Online Sample of US Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 745
Author(s):  
Rob Stephenson ◽  
Stephen P. Sullivan ◽  
Renee A. Pitter ◽  
Alexis S. Hunter ◽  
Tanaka MD Chavanduka
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Binary Outcomes ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Black African ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Public Health Messages ◽  
Sex With Men ◽  
Living With Hiv

This paper presents data from an online sample of U.S gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), to explore the factors associated with three dimensions of vaccine beliefs: perception of the likelihood of a COVID-19 vaccine becoming available, perception of when a COVID-19 vaccine would become available, and the likelihood of taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Data are taken from the Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19 study, collected from November 2020 to January 2021. A sample of 290 GBMSM is analyzed, modeling three binary outcomes: belief that there will be a COVID-19 vaccine, belief that the COVID-19 vaccine will be available in 6 months, and being very likely to take the COVID-19 vaccine. In contrast to other studies, Black/African Americans and GBMSM living with HIV had higher levels of pandemic optimism and were more likely to be willing to accept a vaccine. Men who perceived a higher prevalence of COVID-19 among their friends and sex partners, and those who had reduced their sex partners, were more likely to be willing to take a COVID-19 vaccine. There remained a small percentage of participants (14%) who did not think the pandemic would end, that there would not be a vaccine and were unlikely to take a vaccine. To reach the levels of vaccination necessary to control the pandemic, it is imperative to understand the characteristics of those experiencing vaccine hesitancy and then tailor public health messages to their unique set of barriers and motivations.

VACCINE HESITANCY TO VACCINE DESPERATION! EXPERIENCES FROM 2 VACCINATION CENTERS IN MUMBAI.

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-45
Author(s):  
Reena J. Wani ◽  
Sanjay Panchal ◽  
Kinjal Chauhan ◽  
Varun J. Wani ◽  
Priya H. Manihar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Roll Out ◽  
Available Resources

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Lockdown on March 2020 till date, measures like hand hygiene, social distancing and testing have worked only partially to contain the cases and deaths. Cooper and Nair Hospitals were amongst the nodal centres identied in January 2021 to launch the Nationwide Vaccination drive in Mumbai. Aim: To highlight the pattern of vaccination roll-out, procedures in various phases and discuss concerns, challenges and effect on our workforce and workplan. Methodology: We reviewed the patterns, uptake of vaccine, procedures and problems faced by our vaccination centres from January 15 till April 30 (4 months). We also looked into adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reported. th th Results: Over 68,000 vaccine doses have been administrated in Cooper alone by April end, and issues were analysed in detail with special reference to logistics & challenges. AEFI were very few. We found that initially anxiety about side effects, concerns about choice of vaccine and long-term effects were the major impediments to vaccination. Later on, the demand exceeded the supply. Conclusion: Although vaccination is not the nal answer, it is an important tool to improve our response to the pandemic. Reviewing, restructuring available resources is essential in pandemic situations. Proper planning, counselling and choice in the way forward in this crisis.

The Public Health Nurse and the Patient with Long-Term Illness

1956 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 614
Author(s):  
Ilse S. Wolff ◽  
Harriett Wilcoxson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Nurse ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Nurse

Between the Waves: Building Power for a Public Option

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob S. Hacker
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Public Health Insurance ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
Near Term ◽  
Key Steps ◽  
The Waves

Abstract Given the close division of power in D.C., how might health reformers pursue their bolder aims? In particular, how might they pursue the robust public option that is a centerpiece of Joe Biden’s reform proposal? This ambitious plan, which would allow all Americans to enroll in subsidized public health insurance, is not in the cards right now. However, I argue for conceiving of it as an inspiring vision that can structure immediate initiatives designed to make its achievement more feasible. First, I explain just how far-reaching the mainstream vision of the public option now is. Second, I describe a self-reinforcing path to that endpoint that involves what I call “building power through policy”—using the openings that are likely to exist in the near term to reshape the political landscape for the long term. This path has three key steps: (1) pursuing immediate improvements in the ACA that are tangible and traceable yet do not work against the eventual creation of a public option; (2) building the necessary policy foundations for a public option, while encouraging progressive states to experiment with state public plan models; and (3) seeding and strengthening movements to press for more fundamental reform.

Online Opinion Leaders in the Health Promotion Digital Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 295-309
Author(s):  
Joyce Cheah Lynn-Sze ◽  
◽  
Azlina Kamaruddin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Health Communication ◽  
Opinion Leader ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Opinion Leaders ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
The Public

Health opinion leaders have widely embraced social media for health promotion and public health communication which can make a strong influence on the public decision making. However, despite the growing relevance of public health threats such as infectious diseases, pandemic influenza and natural disasters, research has paid little attention to the qualities of opinion leaders. Moreover, there is limited evidence that public health organisations use social media appropriately to engage in meaningful conversations with audiences. Thus, the aims of the study are to describe principles of communication practised by online opinion leaders to promote health issues, to discuss the strategies of social media used, to explain the opinion leaders’ influence attributes in health decision making and finally to develop a model of online opinion leader in the contemporary health promotion era. Content analysis was conducted on Facebook postings of five selected health opinion leaders. In addition, semi-structured interviews with 10 followers were conducted. The findings of the study revealed that there are three principles of communication practised by online opinion leaders, which are language, interaction and themes. There are three strategies opinion leaders use to influence the public: social connectivity, social support and social consultation. Furthermore, there are five opinion leaders’ attributes that influence the public’s decision making, namely personality, authenticity, trust/credibility, professional knowledge and social position. The model would be beneficial in educating and guiding the current public health opinion leaders in order to establish health and social well-being. Keywords: Online opinion leader, online health communication, public health, two-step flow theory, decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document