When we are discussing something controversial or otherwise difficult like vaccines, it can be challenging to know where to begin. Emotion, culture, context, past experiences, among many other factors, can play a part in this. It can also depend on what one is attempting to achieve with a discussion. Are you trying to change the views of your audience? Or perhaps the goal is to simply inform. At other points, people are purely having an informal discussion. For these reasons, it can help to have an organised guide on how to have discussion on topics such as this. With that, here are some general principles to think about when discussing vaccines or any other difficult topic.
the COVID -19 vaccine
1. Use clear, consistent messaging
The first principle that is consistently found to help across the literature is using clear, consistent messaging. This involves using evidence-based information supporting vaccines (and other public health measures, if required). For instance, you could discuss the theory behind vaccines, and how they give us immunological memory towards different types of microbes. This may also include well-supported data about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Examples include summaries of clinical trials or review papers. More broadly, one could highlight how they have significantly improved health, and reduced morbidity and mortality all over the world. Stories highlighting the severity of vaccine-preventable disease, or vaccination success stories are also highly effective at engaging any audience. In many cases, a combination of these approaches can be most effective.
2. Address audience-specific concerns
Another tried and true piece of advice is to address concerns specific to the audience you are engaging with. For example, pregnant individuals may have concerns about effects of vaccinations to the fetus, religious groups may question whether vaccination is compatible with their faith, and others may have concerns about side effects. A very timely example of this would be focusing on advocating for measles vaccination across Mid and South Western America including Texas, Ohio, New Mexico and Kansas.
Further, the impact of HPV and cervical cancer is significant in Native American communities. Therefore, emphasizing the benefits of HPV vaccination in preventing cervical cancer and other HPV-linked diseases would be hugely beneficial for such groups.
This targeted approach is also needed for other viral types and strains. Polio vaccination advocacy would be relevant on the Gaza Strip following a recent outbreak. Ebola vaccination promotion could be focused in Uganda in the light of a recent clinical efficacy trial for an Ebola vaccine targeting the Sudan strain of the virus. From this, it is clear that endorsement of vaccination is needed in communities that may be hesitant about or reject important vaccines.
Even among supportive groups, it is crucial to address questions and concerns. Among those who are not supportive initially, addressing concerns may plant a seed that can eventually lead to them accepting one or more vaccines. Further, they may also share the information with their communities and so have a domino effect. It is important to not underestimate the potential impact that these small actions can have.
3. Emphasize that vaccination can benefit their loved ones and their broader community
It will be no surprise to anyone that we are social animals and live in communities. With that, we often make decisions based on whether it benefits that community or not. Therefore, it is crucial to explain herd immunity. Outlining that herd immunity can protect their family, friends and other loved ones is an important way to engage any audience. Beyond these, it also protects more vulnerable members of our communities, including the older people, infants, and the immunocompromised, among many others. Some people may have stories or experiences they would like to share. This can be an important part of processing information for some individuals, so it is important to listen with empathy to any experiences they have had.
4. Use credible sources
Sharing credible sources can also work with audiences that have pre-existing trust in vaccines, or are “on the fence”. These may include websites of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), governmental websites, websites from health authorities, and well-written scientific research papers. Such sources provide a reliable foundation on which to base any discussions. This approach eliminates confusion caused by the vast amount of information available online and refines it into several reliable sources that can be referred back to. Also, websites, such as those of the CDC and WHO, provide regular updates about ongoing health events (e.g. the COVID 19 pandemic). They also update existing information according to new research, so can always be referred back to, as previously mentioned. Most governmental and health authority websites do the same (e.g. the National Health Service/NHS in England or the Health Service Executive/HSE in Ireland).
With this said, in groups with strong distrust in vaccines, such sources can be treated with particular suspicion. Therefore, sharing such sources is unlikely to be productive in these groups. In these cases, community-based strategies are important. This involves supporting influential voices within these communities and working with them to outline the very tangible, positive results on vaccination. For instance, a religious community would benefit from a pastor emphasizing the benefits of vaccination, Or, if a particular politician, media personality, or another individual is particularly trusted in a community, they have the influence to seed long-term trust in vaccination within their community.
5. Criticise the argument, not the person
This is probably the most important point in terms of having respectful discussions. However, it is often difficult to put into practice. It is easy to fall into the trap of criticizing a person`s appearance or some aspect of their character instead of focusing on the points they have made. This is called an “ad hominem” fallacy. It is unproductive for several reasons: First, it distracts from the discussion and topic at hand. It is irrelevant and can cause the discussion to go on a tangent that wastes time. Another reason is that the goal of many vaccine discussions is to encourage the other party to accept vaccination or at least be more open to them. If the other party feels insulted or degraded, there is a greatly reduced likelihood that they will genuinely be open to accepting new information.
Conclusion
In the age where mistrust in science is so prevalent, we cannot have enough good science communicators. This is because vaccines and other public health measures benefit everyone on the planet. Respectful, high-quality discussions are a central part of this. It is something that is crucial to take seriously if we have the aim of changing minds about public health and in turn, saving lives. Thanks for reading
Leave a Reply