Understanding and Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in the Context of COVID-19: Development of a Digital intervention

Background

Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified in late 2019. At the time of writing, the latest estimates suggest that it has spread to over 200 countries and has resulted in the deaths of almost two million people.[1] The resulting global pandemic has seriously affected the social and economic fabric of societies everywhere and the physical and mental health crisis continues.[2] Safe and effective vaccines provide a route out of this crisis, but the development of these vaccines, while necessary, are not sufficient. For vaccines to achieve their full potential, the public also need to be willing to be vaccinated. Recent data suggest this cannot be assumed. A recent international survey indicated that, globally, 73% of the population would agree to being vaccinated.[3] This estimate should be viewed against a backdrop of declines in vaccine intent overall and the fact that it masks large variations in intent between countries, genders and across age and ethnic groups.[3-5] Vaccine hesitancy, defined as a “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccine services” [6] may significantly impact uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly amongst ethnic minorities, women, and those with less education [7]. If, as has been suggested, 75-90% of a population will need to be vaccinated for community protection to be achieved,[8] then there is an urgent need to develop equitable and accessible interventions to address vaccine hesitancy at the population level.

Attempts to improve vaccine uptake are not new and have focussed traditionally on approaches such as information/education, incentives[9-11] and reminders. However, results from successive reviews suggest that the evidence-base in support of any one approach remains limited.[9-12] Furthermore, much of the work has been conducted in the context of adults making decisions for their dependents, rather than adults making decisions for themselves. The generalisability of these findings to COVID-19 vaccines in adults is, therefore, unclear. Nonetheless, much can be gleaned from the existing evidence: information, while necessary, is unlikely to improve vaccine uptake on its own, and interventions need to engage with individuals’ reasons for hesitancy i.e., their hesitancy cognitions.[13]

We report here on the development of a scalable digital intervention which seeks to address the concerns of individuals who are vaccine hesitant with a view to enhancing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. We report the process we followed in developing a digital vaccine hesitancy intervention suitable for adults considering a COVID-19 vaccination. In view of the urgency of the public health need, our approach to intervention development was pragmatic and took advantage of existing data where possible and appropriate.

Stage 1: Understanding and identifying common reasons for hesitancy & acceptance

1.2 Rapid Systematic Literature Review

To identify additional themes/reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy that may have not been captured in our survey, a rapid systematic literature review was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, PsychInfo, Medrxiv, PsyAxiv) were searched to identify peer-reviewed journal articles and pre-prints which examined reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy dated between 01/01/2020 and 03/12/2020: using the following search terms: (COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy) OR ((COVID-19) AND (Vaccine hesitancy)). One researcher (RJ) conducted abstract and full-text screening to determine eligibility and a second cross-checked all eligibility decisions (KA).

Following title and abstract screening, 49 articles remained for full-text screening, with 10 ultimately deemed suitable for inclusion summarised in table 2 [15-24]. The primary reason for excluding articles at the full-text screening stage were that many studies looked at vaccine intention only, not reasons for vaccine hesitancy (see Figure 1). Three of the studies were conducted in the United States, and two in the United Kingdom. The remaining 5 studies were conducted in Nigeria, Mainland China, Hong-Kong, France and Malta respectively. Six studies identified reasons for vaccine hesitancy based on survey questions where a pre-selected list of potential reasons were given. Three studies coded free-text responses to survey questions and one study analysed participant interviews. Six of the studies collected data from general population sample, three collected data from healthcare workers and one did both.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 2.

Summary of studies included in rapid literature review

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

PRISMA summary of search procedure

The most common themes identified in this review mirrored those identified in our survey. However, the following additional themes were identified: (1) vaccine scepticism; (2) cost of vaccines; (3) concerns relating to vaccine contents; (4) timing of vaccination in relation to the state of the pandemic and (5) concern that the vaccine might result in COVID-19 disease (see table 2).

Stage 2: Synthesising the evidence-based views of independent experts

Following the identification of 10 core vaccine concerns (Table 3) we sought to gather evidence-based responses to these concerns. This was achieved through semi-structured interviews with six academic and clinical experts from the fields of public health, general medicine, respiratory medicine and immunology with particular expertise in COVID-19 and/or COVID-19 vaccines. Each expert was presented with the list of 10 concerns and asked to provide an evidence-based response to each concern based on their knowledge of the scientific literature at that time. Interviews with experts were subjected to rapid thematic and content analysis after each interview and interviews continued until saturation in responses was achieved (i.e., no new responses emerged) [25].

The expert responses demonstrated significant thematic overlap and consistency. Table 3 summarises the areas of evidence cited by experts in response to each concern.

Stage 3: Developing therapeutic dialogues to address common vaccine hesitancy concerns

Our approach to developing the intervention was predicated on two main observations of the existing evidence. First that psychoeducation alone (i.e. provision of information gathered in Stage 2) is unlikely to be an effective way to address COVID-19 vaccine concerns. Second that a central pillar of our approach should be to acknowledge and engage with individuals’ concerns in a supportive context. To achieve this, we sought to develop ‘therapeutic dialogues’ based on the communication principles of motivational interviewing (MI) including:

• Expressing empathy: cultivating an empathic space with which to explore hesitancy

• Developing discrepancy: identifying areas in which a person’s actions are misaligned with their personal values and goals

• Embracing resistance: working collaboratively with an individual to foster change and recognising when that resistance and motivation are intricately tied

• Supporting self-efficacy: enhancing confidence that an individual can embark on change[26].

MI was considered an appropriate approach because individuals who are vaccine hesitant are, by definition, not ready to, or ambivalent about, changing their cognitions and behaviour and MI is known to be effective in such contexts.[27,28] Thus, for each of the most common vaccine concerns identified in Stage 1 we developed a therapeutic dialogue which would both impart information relevant to the individual concern, but do so using the communication principles of MI with a view to facilitating cognitive and, in turn, behaviour change i.e., reduce hesitancy and improve vaccine uptake.

Development of the therapeutic dialogues occurred through several expert workshops with behavioural scientists with expertise in MI, therapeutic interventions, digital interventions, behaviour change and COVID-19. First, key themes identified in the expert interviews (Stage 2) were discussed and translated into conversational language. The investigators chose a conversational approach to align with the online delivery format and to ensure inclusivity for all reading/English levels (see stage 4 below). Second, the dialogues were reviewed to identify points at which MI techniques could be integrated throughout. This process drew on contributors’ experience in behaviour change research and adopted the approach proposed by Rollnick and colleagues [26]. This included expressing empathy through use of accepting and non-judgemental language. Developing discrepancy by simultaneously providing information related to the concern, and presenting a rationale for vaccine uptake. The latter were derived from survey respondents willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (see Table 1b) and sought to develop a discrepancy between the individual’s cause for concern and their wider personal values and goals. Embracing resistance by acknowledging that their concerns are shared by others and are legitimate and supporting self-efficacy by reinforcing the individual’s personal agency in making their decision to accept a vaccine or not. See Table 4 for illustrative examples of how MI principles were embedded within the therapeutic dialogues.

Finally, we hosted a PPI workshop to discuss the resulting dialogues. The group, while small (n=4), included two adults less than 30 years (two greater than 50 years); three women and one man and all reported an interest in vaccine hesitancy and had some experiences of it in friends and family. The feedback obtained through this workshop fostered changes to their readability, along with expansion of the information conveyed and greater consideration of specific groups within the population (i.e. those who have allergies or specific religious and cultural needs). No additional vaccine concerns were identified by the group.

Stage 4: The digital intervention

The script from each of the 10 therapeutic dialogues provided the architecture for our digital, web-based, vaccine hesitancy intervention. This intervention has been built in the form of a conversational interface through which individuals identify the issue that most closely underpins their reason for being hesitant, (from the issues stated above e.g., concerns about side effects). This identification triggers a therapeutic dialogue relevant to the selected concern, with opportunities for the individual to further explore the content as they progress through the dialogue as well as to access responses to more than just their initial concern. Once developed, the digital intervention was piloted with 18 members of the public (nine male / nine female) who had no previous experience with the dialogues. Participant feedback on the user interface, accessibility, and general presentation led to a final iteration of the intervention, which can be viewed here www.covidvaxfacts.info¹