Information Source's Influence on Vaccine Perceptions: An Exploration into Perceptions of Knowledge, Risk and Safety

"Communication scholars and practitioners can use this information to assist in messaging and future vaccination interventions."

The COVID-19 pandemic sparked concern that the rise in vaccine hesitancy, partly attributed to the viral spread of anti-vaccination information through social media, could undermine efforts to control the spread of coronavirus, once a vaccine is available. Given the clear lack of natural immunity to this virus and the deadly consequences it can have on health and the global economy, the importance of communication (e.g., of sound data) regarding vaccines - not only for COVID-19 but in general - has come to the forefront of public discourse. Communication scholars and practitioners are reminded of the need to understand perceptions of vaccines overall in individuals to better understand how to slow the rise of vaccine hesitancy. From the United States (US), this study focuses on college-age students (18-24 years of age), as they are developing their identities as adults, display an acceptance of personal responsibility regarding health decisions, and are the next potential parental generation.

The study focuses on the four variables of perceived beliefs, perceived knowledge, perceived risk, and perceived safety, concepts drawn from the World Health Organization (WHO) Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Having reviewed some of the literature around these contributors to vaccine perceptions, the paper discusses the influence that various information sources - from health communication experts, doctor-patient relationships, and family to public health campaigns - can have on individuals' attitudes, beliefs, and health behaviours. For example, many government sources (both federal and state) provide information in an attempt to help young adults learn about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). Their efforts often are seen as credible and reliable sources of vaccine information. However, college-age students can receive media messages about vaccines framed in in multiple ways. In particular, the news media may represent an often-unreliable source of information. In addition, the internet and social media provides a range of messages regarding vaccines and VPDs, which can be laden with misinterpreted or false information. Healthcare providers, family, and friends can also influence vaccine-related decisions.

Of the 180 young adults who took an online survey, the majority are female (n=114; 63.3%), have some college experience (n=131; 72.8%), and self-reported being White/Caucasian (n=123; 68.3%).

Based on regression analyses, the study found that vaccine beliefs were significantly impacted by safety and risk perceptions at the expense of knowledge perceptions. That is to say: In the context of dealing with college-age students, perceptions of risk and safety are a priority and may override concerns about knowledge level in determining vaccine beliefs. Thus vaccine information efforts should focus less on students' level of knowledge and more on safety issues.

Furthermore, various information sources influenced perceptions of safety (healthcare provider), risk (social media), and knowledge (social media and healthcare providers). Taken together, the results suggest that as college-age students' reliance on social media as their source of information about vaccines increases, they tend to view vaccines as riskier, and perceive themselves as having less knowledge about vaccines. In contrast, as college-age students turn to healthcare providers as their source of information, their level of perceived knowledge, as well as the perception that vaccines are safe, increases.

The results are curious for the lack of significance for the internet, government officials, and the news media as significant sources of vaccine information for this population. Likewise, the lack of significant relationships between family and friends towards perceived knowledge, perceived risk, and perceived safety suggests that these particular interpersonal channels may not be perceived to be valid sources of vaccine information among college-age students. For example, research on emerging adulthood suggests that college-age students are starting to engage in healthcare by themselves for the first time; thus, they may be becoming independent of parental influences on health decisions. It might be the case that getting adults to discuss vaccines with their children or addressing parents' concerns about vaccinations in the hope that it filters down to their children is not the best strategy when dealing with college-age students. More research could help shed light on some of these results. Additional research is also warranted to see how government websites may be better able to communicate their aims towards improving vaccine rates.

After outlining some practical implications of the findings, the paper concludes: "The college-age student represents a unique population whose vaccine-related beliefs and perceptions may be influenced by different sources of information. It is possible that future vaccination programs may need to be more targeted in their approaches to provide vaccine information based upon the preferences of this population. Such understanding may add additional clarity to contributors of vaccine hesitancy."