Protecting public health or commercial interests? The importance of transparency during immunization campaigns

Bélisle-Pipon, Jean-Christophe; Ringuette, Louise; Doudenkova, Victoria; Williams‐Jones, Bryn

doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2017.05.002

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 22 ). As discussed by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative ( 19 ) this entails a commitment to “not hide the potential limitations of vaccines, including possible limited availability, incomplete protection requiring boosting and reactogenicity,” even if “such negative or complicating factors might lower uptake” as “their discovery post-rollout is likely to have a far greater negative impact on uptake.” Importantly, these current calls resonate with a number of critiques of the lack of transparency in prior but smaller-scale immunization campaigns ( 23 – 25 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust

Petersen

Bor

Jørgensen

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

151

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the rapid development and rolling out of vaccines against COVID-19, researchers have called for an approach of “radical transparency,” in which vaccine information is transparently disclosed to the public, even if negative information can decrease vaccine uptake. Consistent with theories about the psychology of conspiracy beliefs, these calls predict that a lack of transparency may reduce trust in health authorities and may facilitate the spread of conspiracy theories, which may limit the long-term capabilities of health authorities during and after the pandemic. On the basis of preregistered experiments conducted on large, representative samples of Americans and Danes (N > 13,000), the current study contrasts the effects of vague vaccine communication with transparent communication, which discloses either positive or negative vaccine features. The evidence demonstrates that transparent negative communication may indeed harm vaccine acceptance here and now but that it increases trust in health authorities. Furthermore, the alternative of vague, reassuring communication does not increase vaccine acceptance either and leads to both lower trust and higher endorsement of conspiracy theories.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust

Petersen

Bor

Jørgensen

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

151

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Institutions must ensure that public health research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner, and that good research does not come at the expense of the protection of privacy. In so doing, by being transparent, institutions demonstrate that they are accountable and working in the public interest; they are trustworthy because they demonstrate that they have nothing to hide [32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Personal Information for Public Health Research: Transparency Should Always Be Mandatory

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. Abstract Au Québec, la Loi sur l'accès aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseignements personnels offre une exception en matière de transparence à la plupart des institutions publiques où la recherche en santé publique est menée en leur permettant de ne pas divulguer leurs utilisations de données à caractère personnel (souvent collectées sans le consentement des personnes étudiées). Cette exception est éthiquement problématique en raison de préoccupations importantes (ex. : la protection de la vie privée et les inconvénients potentiels des utilisations secondaires de données) et nous soutenons que tous ceux qui mènent des recherches doivent être transparents et responsables du travail qu'ils accomplissent dans l'intérêt public.In Québec, the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information provides an exception to transparency to most public institutions where public health research is conducted by allowing them to not disclose their uses of personal data (often collected without the consent of those being studied). This exceptionalism is ethically problematic due to important concerns (e.g., protection of privacy and potential harms of secondary uses of data) and we argue that all those who conduct research should be transparent and accountable for the work they do in the public interest. Mots clés

show abstract

“…As discussed by The Royal Society DVELE Initiative (2020) this entails a commitment to "not hide the potential limitations of vaccines including possible limited availability, incomplete protection requiring boosting and reactogenicity", even if "such negative or complicating factors might lower uptake" as "their discovery post-rollout is likely to have a far greater negative impact on uptake." Importantly, these current calls resonate with a number of critiques of the lack of transparency in prior but smaller-scale immunization campaigns (Black & Rappuolli, 2010;Bélisle-Pipon et al, 2017;Dayrit et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Transparent Communication About Negative Features of COVID-19 Vaccines Decreases Acceptance But Increases Trust

Mb¹,

A²,

Jørgensen³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health authorities emphasize the importance of "radical transparency" in communicating about future COVID-19 vaccines to counter conspiracy-based skepticism. While this resonates with research that highlights uncertainty as a major psychological predictor of conspiracy-related beliefs, no systematic evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of transparency as communication strategy. This study tests the effects of transparent communication about a COVID-19 vaccine using a pre-registered experiment fielded to large, representative samples of Americans and Danes (N > 6,800). The evidence confirms that positive but vague vaccine communication does not increase vaccine support but rather infuses attitudes with conspiracy-related beliefs. Against the hopes of authorities, however, there is little evidence that transparency alone can reduce vaccine skepticism, unless this transparency discloses a highly safe and effective vaccine. Additional analyses suggest that this reflects that vaccine skepticism is not grounded in psychological uncertainty but in deep distrust of authorities, which impedes the effectiveness of their communication.

show abstract

Protecting public health or commercial interests? The importance of transparency during immunization campaigns

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust

Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust

Access to Personal Information for Public Health Research: Transparency Should Always Be Mandatory

Transparent Communication About Negative Features of COVID-19 Vaccines Decreases Acceptance But Increases Trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About