Embracing context: Lessons from designing a dialogue-based intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.

Dialogue with people who are vaccine hesitant has been recommended as a method to increase vaccination uptake. The process of cultivating dialogue is shaped by the context in which it occurs, yet the development of interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy with dialogue often overlooks the role of context and favors relatively fixed solutions. This reflexive paper shares three key lessons related to context for dialogue-based interventions. These lessons emerged during a participatory research project to develop a pilot intervention to create open dialogue among healthcare workers in Belgium about COVID-19 vaccination concerns. Through a mixed methods study consisting of in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys, we engaged healthcare workers in the design, testing, and evaluation of a digital platform featuring text-based and video-based (face-to-face) interactions. The lessons are: (1) what dialogue means, entails, and requires can vary for a population and context, (2) inherent tension exists between helping participants voice (and overcome) their concerns and exposing them to others' ideas that may exacerbate those concerns, and (3) interactional exchanges (e.g., with peers or experts) that matter to participants may shape the dialogue in terms of its content and form. We suggest that having a discovery-orientation-meaning to work not only inductively and iteratively but also reflexively-is a necessary part of the development of dialogue-based interventions. Our case also sheds light on the influences between: dialogue topic/content, socio-political landscape, population, intervention aim, dialogue form, ethics, researcher position, and types of interactional exchanges

Doubt at the core: Unspoken vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers.

Funding Information: CG, KP, SD, TK, TN, CVR, LWH report a grant from Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO- Research Foundation – Flanders), to conduct social listening of vaccine concerns in Belgium.publishersversionpublishe

Parallel vaccine discourses in Guinea: ‘grounding’ social listening for a non-hegemonic global health

International audienceMisinformation has been identified as a major threat to public confidence in vaccines, particularly during epidemics. As a response, social listening has become a popular and heuristic public health tool for detecting misinformation and adapting vaccine communication. In this article, we take a critical stance on the normalised approach to social listening which solely relies on the analysis of online discourses. We highlight that the current social listening paradigm inherited a reductionist and utilitarian approach from commercial marketing that struggles to grasp – and even misrepresents – the complexity of health-related perceptions and knowledge. This study draws from online COVID-19 vaccines discourses in Guinea and ethnographic fieldwork among Guinean healthcare workers. While the online social listening showcased a predominance of individual and collective safety concerns, distrust towards African elites and Western actors, fieldwork revealed that healthcare workers’ vaccine perceptions were more nuanced and largely shaped by complex kinship relations spanning across online and offline social landscapes. Furthermore, healthcare workers often displayed frontstage and backstage vaccine discourses, their vaccines related representations and claims could evolve depending on the context of enunciation. We advocate for grounding social listening in global health to avoid disconnection from the public. Failure to accomplish this could result in a detached and hegemonic form of ‘social hearing’, rather than authentic social listening. In light of this, the transdisciplinary methodology exemplified in this paper represents one possible solution

Outsciencing the scientists : a cross-sectional mixed-methods investigation of public trust in scientists in seven European countries

Abstract: Background In this era of global health crises, public trust in scientists is a crucial determinant of adherence to public health recommendations. Studies of trust in scientists often link sociodemographic and other factors to such adherence but rely on assumptions about scientists and neglect scientific uncertainty. We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study evaluating factors associated with public trust of scientists in Europe, investigating how and why respondents embraced certain claims in scientific debates. Methods A survey was administered to 7000 participants across seven European countries in December 2020. Data concerning sociodemographic characteristics, trust in scientists, information source preferences, COVID-19 experiences and beliefs about pandemic origins were analysed using a multiple regression model. We employed thematic analysis to interpret open-text responses about pandemic origins and likely acceptance of treatments and vaccination. Results Trust in scientists was associated with multiple sociodemographic characteristics, including higher age and educational levels, left/centre political affiliation and use of certain information sources. Respondents claiming that COVID-19 was deliberately released and that 5G technology worsened COVID-19 symptoms had lower levels of trust in scientists. Explaining their positions in debates about pandemic origins, respondents trusting and not trusting scientists invoked scientific results and practices, arguing that scientists were not the most important actors in these debates. Conclusions Although our quantitative analyses align with prior studies, our qualitative analyses of scientists, their practices and perceived roles are more varied than prior research presumed. Further investigation of these variations is needed to strengthen scientific literacy and trust in scientists

Outsciencing the scientists: a cross-sectional mixed-methods investigation of public trust in scientists in seven European countries

International audienceBackground In this era of global health crises, public trust in scientists is a crucial determinant of adherence to public health recommendations. Studies of trust in scientists often link sociodemographic and other factors to such adherence but rely on assumptions about scientists and neglect scientific uncertainty. We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study evaluating factors associated with public trust of scientists in Europe, investigating how and why respondents embraced certain claims in scientific debates.Methods A survey was administered to 7000 participants across seven European countries in December 2020. Data concerning sociodemographic characteristics, trust in scientists, information source preferences, COVID-19 experiences and beliefs about pandemic origins were analysed using a multiple regression model. We employed thematic analysis to interpret open-text responses about pandemic origins and likely acceptance of treatments and vaccination.Results Trust in scientists was associated with multiple sociodemographic characteristics, including higher age and educational levels, left/centre political affiliation and use of certain information sources. Respondents claiming that COVID-19 was deliberately released and that 5G technology worsened COVID-19 symptoms had lower levels of trust in scientists. Explaining their positions in debates about pandemic origins, respondents trusting and not trusting scientists invoked scientific results and practices, arguing that scientists were not the most important actors in these debates.Conclusions Although our quantitative analyses align with prior studies, our qualitative analyses of scientists, their practices and perceived roles are more varied than prior research presumed. Further investigation of these variations is needed to strengthen scientific literacy and trust in scientists

Embracing context: Lessons from designing a dialogue-based intervention to address vaccine hesitancy

International audienceDialogue with people who are vaccine hesitant has been recommended as a method to increase vaccination uptake. The process of cultivating dialogue is shaped by the context in which it occurs, yet the development of interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy with dialogue often overlooks the role of context and favors relatively fixed solutions. This reflexive paper shares three key lessons related to context for dialogue-based interventions. These lessons emerged during a participatory research project to develop a pilot intervention to create open dialogue among healthcare workers in Belgium about COVID-19 vaccination concerns. Through a mixed methods study consisting of in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys, we engaged healthcare workers in the design, testing, and evaluation of a digital platform featuring text-based and video-based (face-to-face) interactions. The lessons are: (1) what dialogue means, entails, and requires can vary for a population and context, (2) inherent tension exists between helping participants voice (and overcome) their concerns and exposing them to others' ideas that may exacerbate those concerns, and (3) interactional exchanges (e.g., with peers or experts) that matter to participants may shape the dialogue in terms of its content and form. We suggest that having a discovery-orientation—meaning to work not only inductively and iteratively but also reflexively—is a necessary part of the development of dialogue-based interventions. Our case also sheds light on the influences between: dialogue topic/content, socio-political landscape, population, intervention aim, dialogue form, ethics, researcher position, and types of interactional exchanges

Silences stratégiques, confiance érodée : L'impact des sentiments divergents à l'égard du vaccin COVID-19 sur les relations des travailleurs de la santé avec leurs pairs et les patients.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: Polarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients.Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage. METHODS: Interviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients. RESULTS: Most participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others' openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments. DISCUSSION: Belgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in "strategic silences" around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium's, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks

More than one crisis: COVID-19 response actors navigating multi-dimensional crises in Flanders, Belgium

International audienceThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted societies globally. Public health institutions were tasked with responding to the pandemic in a dynamic and uncertain context. This paper sheds light on the experiences of COVID-19 response actors as they navigated multi-dimensional crises associated with the pandemic in general and vaccine hesitancy in particular. This research was conducted during the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Flanders, Belgium. Participants included informants across all levels of the COVID-19 vaccination strategy including but not limited to those producing scientific knowledge, providing policy input, or implementing public health directives locally. 'Crisis' was identified as a recurring theme in interviews with informants. The paper highlights multi-dimensional crises experienced by informants such as the: (i) crisis of prioritization, (ii) crisis of communication, (iii) crisis of the changing image of science, (iv) crisis of epistemic agency and autonomy, and (v) crisis of trust