Suboptimal vaccination rates are a significant problem in many countries today, in spite of improved access to vaccine services. As a result, there has been a recent expansion of research on how best to communicate about vaccines. The purpose of the present article is to provide an updated review of published, peer-reviewed empirical studies that examined the effectiveness of gain versus loss framing (i.e., goal framing) in the context of vaccine communication. To locate studies, we examined the reference list from the previous meta-analytic review (O'Keefe & Nan, 2012), and we conducted systematic searches across multiple databases. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The relative effectiveness of goal-framed vaccine messages was often shown to depend on characteristics of the message recipient, perceived risk, or situational factors, yet most effects were inconsistent across studies, or simply limited by an insufficient number of studies. Methodological characteristics and variations are noted and discussed. The review points to several directions concerning moderators and mediators of framing effects where additional rigorous studies would be needed.

Online posts are likely to elicit fear and doubts around vaccination, which in turn may impair decisions. Findings indicate that targeted education campaigns are needed in order to address public concerns about vaccination.

No abstract

Romania has the highest cervical cancer burden in Europe. Despite the implementation of two human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes, the uptake remained extremely low and the programmes were discontinued. Given that media are a common source of information for the public and may influence vaccination decisions, this article sought to explore the content and quality of HPV vaccine media coverage in Romania. We conducted a content analysis of 271 media reports (from newspapers, magazines, videos and informational websites) published online between November 2007 and January 2012. Overall, results indicated that 31.4% of the materials were neutral, 28% were negative or extremely negative, 17% were mixed, while 23.6% were positive towards the vaccine. The most dominant vaccine-related concerns were side effects and insufficient testing. Elementary information about the vaccine and HPV was constantly left out and sometimes inaccuracies were found. Negatively disposed reports were more likely to contain incorrect data about vaccine efficacy and less likely to provide comprehensive information about the vaccine and HPV-related diseases. Some dimensions of media coverage varied across time and media outlets. The present findings suggest that educational interventions are greatly needed as a response to suboptimal and incomplete media coverage of HPV vaccination.