How candid talk can raise Covid jab uptake

Maxine, 46, has been living with the fear of contracting Covid-19 since the pandemic was reported in Kenya last year.

As such, she was eagerly waiting for the coronavirus vaccine, just as other populations world over.

Despite waiting for long to be vaccinated, Maxine began having doubts about the intervention after she learnt about the rare side effects of the vaccine that was being rolled out in Kenya.

“I saw online about how some people are thought to have suffered from blood clots after taking [a particular vaccine] and that really scared me. I am still weighing my options before I decide on the next step,” she says.

Maxine is among many Kenyans who are hesitant to embrace the vaccines, in spite of the available scientific evidence about the immense impact that they can play in preventing infection or severe diseases associated with Covid-19.

As more and more vaccines get into the country, various institutions and organisations have been encouraging their employees to get the jab so as to keep safe and facilitate a gradual return to the office, after close to two years of people working virtually.

The increased uptake of vaccines will also go a long way in enabling the government to relax some of the Covid-19 containment measures and open up the economy.

In a bid to tackle vaccine hesitancy among the various targeted populations, it may be tempting to put much focus on just the positive effects of the vaccines while leaving out the side effects.

Some people do so, thinking that the latter approach may scare targeted groups who may fear for their lives.

Even though these observations may be true in some cases, health experts and human behaviour specialists note that the one-sided information approach does more harm than good.

They note that talking openly about the vaccines by providing balanced information, about the benefits and side effects, yields favourable results. This approach can win over more people to take the jab.

Indeed, a new study published in the Journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) notes that open communication fosters support for vaccines if it transparently describes truthful or factual information regarding them.

The researchers note that these findings can help health authorities and politicians to help ensure public acceptance of vaccines, which aside from having rare side effects, have proven effective in preventing serious Covid-19 disease.

The study, which involved 13,000 participants from the United States and Denmark, offers great insights on how countries can improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccines amid the existing information about their side effects that seem to be breeding vaccines hesitancy among some people.

For instance, there have been reports that AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson may have rare but potentially fatal side effects such as low blood platelet counts and blood clots.

Recently, reports also emerged that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may cause heart inflammation in rare cases, which is a serious condition that ranks high among global health threats.

“How to communicate about the vaccines is a real dilemma. Politicians have a desire to stop the pandemic as quickly as possible, and this may give them an incentive to tone down the negative sides of the vaccines in order to vaccinate as many people as possible,” says Michael Petersen, the lead author of the study and professor of political science at the Aarhus University, based in Denmark.

"But our research shows that it does not foster support for vaccination when communication about the vaccines is reassuring, but vague. On the contrary, vague communication weakens people's confidence in the health authorities, and feeds conspiracy theories. When communication is not transparent, it triggers uncertainty and people feel they may be misled,” says Petersen.

He notes that even though the transparency about the negative features of a vaccine may create hesitancy, this reluctance is usually reason-based.

As such, health authorities still have the possibility of explaining why it may still be advisable to accept the vaccine.

“On the other hand, vague or reassuring communication, where negative features of the vaccines are toned down, lowers acceptance of vaccines. The reason is that vague communication creates a sense of hesitancy and uncertainty, and this in turn feeds conspiracy theories and reduces confidence in the health authorities,” he states.

RADICAL TRANSPARENCY

Consequently, the study indicates that open communication offers a two-pronged approach to dealing with the vaccines’ hesitancy problem. It prevents conspiracy theories from spreading while at the same time boosting trust in the health authorities, which is key to defeating coronavirus.

"Maintaining trust in the health authorities is extremely important because this is the most crucial factor in securing public support for the vaccines. Therefore, communicating transparently about vaccines secures the single most important factor for sustaining vaccine acceptance," says Peterson.

"Openness ensures long-term trust, and this is crucial if we are to be revaccinated, or in relation to the next major health crisis," he states.

The researchers are therefore calling for an approach of “radical transparency,” in which vaccine information is disclosed to the public, even if negative information can decrease vaccine uptake.