Examining the effect of information channel on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance

  1. Rachael Piltch-Loeb
  2. Elena Savoia
  3. Beth Goldberg
  4. Brian Hughes
  5. Tanner Verhey
  6. Juliette Kayyem
  7. Cynthia Miller-Idriss
  8. Marcia Testa

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine remains high among the US population. Now that the vaccine is available to priority populations, it is critical to convince those that are hesitant to take the vaccine. Public health communication about the vaccine as well as misinformation on the vaccine occurs through a variety of different information channels. Some channels of information are more commonly found to spread misinformation. Given the expansive information environment, we sought to characterize the use of different media channels for COVID-19 vaccine information and determine the relationship between information channel and vaccine acceptance. We used quota sampling of vaccine priority groups [N = 2,650] between December 13 and 23, 2020 and conducted bivariate chi-squared tests and multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses to determine the relative impact of channels of information on vaccine acceptance. We found traditional channels of information, especially National TV, National newspapers, and local newspapers increased the likelihood of vaccine acceptance. Individuals who received information from traditional media compared to social media or both traditional and social media were most likely to accept the vaccine. The implications of this study suggest social media channels have a role to play in educating the hesitant to accept the vaccine, while traditional media channels should continue to promote data-driven and informed vaccine content to their viewers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0251095
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.18.21250049: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study protocol and survey instrument were approved by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board.
    RandomizationTo incentivize participation, small monetary incentives are provided to randomly selected users who complete the surveys.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    : StataCorp LLC.
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: This is a cross-sectional study and cannot disentangle if those that are already more likely to take the vaccine are drawn to traditional media channels, while those that are more hesitant are using social media or other channels we did not include in our analysis. Further longitudinal analysis is necessary to explore this issue. Additionally, TV and newspaper channels may be promoted on social media channels such as when an individual sees a given newspaper’s story being shared on Facebook. This analysis cannot separate out the impact of this exchange. Respondents were also not asked exclusively to select a particular channel of information. This paper also did not evaluate the cumulative effect of getting information from multiple channels or the frequency of information from a given channel. Additionally, this is not a representative sample, but rather a convenience sample of workers in potential vaccine priority groups in the US. The results may not be generalizable beyond this sample.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.18.21250049v1 on medRxiv