Trusted sources for COVID-19 testing and vaccination: lessons for future health communication.

Q2 Social Sciences
Camille Kroll, Amy McQueen, Victoria De La Vega, Alexis K Marsh, Tim Poor, Niko Verdecias, Charlene Caburnay, Matthew W Kreuter
{"title":"Trusted sources for COVID-19 testing and vaccination: lessons for future health communication.","authors":"Camille Kroll, Amy McQueen, Victoria De La Vega, Alexis K Marsh, Tim Poor, Niko Verdecias, Charlene Caburnay, Matthew W Kreuter","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2023.2255408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Promoting COVID-19 vaccination (both the primary series and boosters) remains a priority among healthcare professionals and requires understanding the various sources people trust for acquiring COVID-19 information.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>From October 2021 to May 2022, we interviewed 150 people who called 2-1-1 helplines in Connecticut and North Carolina about their COVID-19 testing and vaccination experiences in order to (1) better understand where people obtain trusted COVID-19 health information and (2) identify how public health professionals can share emergency health information in the future. We used a mixed methods approach in which semi-structured qualitative interviews and survey data were collected in parallel and analyzed separately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were mostly female (74.0%), Black (43.3%) or White (38.0%), and had a high school degree or higher (88.0%). Most had prior COVID-19 testing experience (88.0%) and were vaccinated (82.7%). A variety of information sources were rated as being very trustworthy including medical professionals and social service organizations. We found that repetition of information from multiple sources increased trust; however, perceived inconsistencies in recommendations over time eroded trust in health communication, especially from government-affiliated information sources. Observations such as seeing long lines for COVID-19 testing or vaccination became internalized trusted information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Public health professionals can leverage the reach and strong community ties of existing, reputable non-government organizations, such as physician groups, schools, and pharmacies, to distribute COVID-19 information about vaccination and testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"350-357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10841886/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2255408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Promoting COVID-19 vaccination (both the primary series and boosters) remains a priority among healthcare professionals and requires understanding the various sources people trust for acquiring COVID-19 information.

Method: From October 2021 to May 2022, we interviewed 150 people who called 2-1-1 helplines in Connecticut and North Carolina about their COVID-19 testing and vaccination experiences in order to (1) better understand where people obtain trusted COVID-19 health information and (2) identify how public health professionals can share emergency health information in the future. We used a mixed methods approach in which semi-structured qualitative interviews and survey data were collected in parallel and analyzed separately.

Results: Participants were mostly female (74.0%), Black (43.3%) or White (38.0%), and had a high school degree or higher (88.0%). Most had prior COVID-19 testing experience (88.0%) and were vaccinated (82.7%). A variety of information sources were rated as being very trustworthy including medical professionals and social service organizations. We found that repetition of information from multiple sources increased trust; however, perceived inconsistencies in recommendations over time eroded trust in health communication, especially from government-affiliated information sources. Observations such as seeing long lines for COVID-19 testing or vaccination became internalized trusted information.

Conclusions: Public health professionals can leverage the reach and strong community ties of existing, reputable non-government organizations, such as physician groups, schools, and pharmacies, to distribute COVID-19 information about vaccination and testing.

新冠肺炎检测和疫苗接种的可靠来源:未来健康沟通的经验教训。
背景:推广新冠肺炎疫苗接种(包括初级系列和加强针)仍然是医疗保健专业人员的优先事项,需要了解人们信任的获取新冠肺炎信息的各种来源。方法:从2021年10月到2022年5月,我们采访了150名在康涅狄格州和北卡罗来纳州拨打2-1-1求助热线的人,了解他们的新冠肺炎检测和疫苗接种经历,以(1)更好地了解人们从何处获得可信的新冠肺炎健康信息,(2)确定公共卫生专业人员未来如何共享紧急健康信息。我们使用了一种混合方法,其中半结构化的定性访谈和调查数据被并行收集并分别分析。结果:参与者大多为女性(74.0%)、黑人(43.3%)或白人(38.0%),具有高中或更高学历(88.0%)。大多数人之前有新冠肺炎检测经验(88.0%),并接种了疫苗(82.7%)。各种信息来源被评为非常值得信赖,包括医疗专业人员和社会服务组织。我们发现,来自多个来源的信息的重复增加了信任;然而,随着时间的推移,人们对建议的不一致性削弱了人们对健康沟通的信任,尤其是来自政府附属信息来源的信任。观察结果,如看到新冠肺炎检测或疫苗接种排长队,已成为内部可信信息。结论:公共卫生专业人员可以利用现有、声誉良好的非政府组织(如医生团体、学校和药店)的影响力和强大的社区联系,分发有关疫苗接种和检测的新冠肺炎信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信