Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Assessing the Effectiveness of Common Health Messaging Tactics on Vaccine Uptake

Fri, September 6, 12:00 to 1:30pm, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Adams

Abstract

Prior to and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, US federal and local public health agencies have employed many different messaging tactics aimed at encouraging people to take action against COVID-19 and other communicable/non-communicable diseases. The degree to which these approaches have been effective, however, is likely influenced by both their content, political context, and/or trust in public health experts. In this manuscript, we describe the results of multi-year study funded by the National Science Foundation wherein we employ “big data” content analytic procedures to identify themes and message design elements present in past efforts to encourage vaccine uptake from federal and local health agencies. We then assess the effectiveness of past efforts via a series of randomized controlled trials embedded in public opinion surveys; including (a) a “pilot phase” conjoint experimental study embedded in a longitudinal survey capable of assessing the effectiveness of several hundred different messaging strategies, (b) a “confirmatory phase” factorial experiment – embedded in a nationally representative cross-sectional study – testing the effectiveness of the most promising interventions identified in the pilot phase, and (c) an “implementation phase” field experiment – conducted in partnership with market research agencies – that administers our most effective treatments on web and social media platforms. Preliminary results investigate the key moderating role of endorsements from political vs. non-political elites in shaping receptivity to messages emanating from government public health agencies. We conclude by discussing how results from this research can provide local and federal health communicators with “best practice” advice for effective vaccine promotion in politicized contexts.

Authors