“Where the truth really lies”: Listening to voices from African American communities in the Southern States about COVID-19 vaccine information and communication
====================================================================================================================================================================

* Ran Zhang
* Shan Qiao
* Brooke McKeever
* Bankole Olatosi
* Xiaoming Li

## Abstract

**Background** High uptake of COVID-19 vaccine is one of the most promising measures to control the pandemic. However, some African American (AA) communities exhibit vaccination hesitancy due to mis-or dis-information. It is important to understand the challenges in accessing reliable COVID-19 vaccine information and to develop feasible health communication interventions based on voices from AA communities.

**Methods** We conducted two focus group discussions (FGDs) among 18 community leaders recruited from three counties in South Carolina on October 8 and October 29, 2021. The FGDs were conducted online via Zoom meetings. The FGD data were managed and thematically analyzed using QSR NVivo 12 software.

**Results** Participants (73% female and 61% between the ages of 18 and 30) worked primarily in colleges (55.5%), churches (39%), and health agencies (5.5%). We found that challenges of accessing reliable COVID-19 vaccine information in AA communities primarily included structural barriers, information barriers, and lack of trust. Community leaders recommended recruiting trusted messengers, using homecoming events, football games, and other social events to reach target populations and conducting health communication campaigns through open dialogue among stakeholders.

**Conclusion** Health communication interventions on COVID-19 vaccine uptake should be grounded in ongoing community engagement, trust-building activities, and transparent communication about vaccine development. Tailoring health communication interventions to different groups may help reduce misinformation spread and thus promote vaccination in AA communities in the Southern States.

Keywords
*   COVID-19 vaccines
*   African American
*   misinformation
*   health communication
*   qualitative study
*   USA

## 1. Background

As of March 2, 2022, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused more than 78.9 million cases and 950,112 deaths in the United States (US) [1]. High uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine is one of the most promising measures to reduce the disease burden and control the pandemic. However, current vaccination rates in the US are suboptimal, with 67.9% of the population aged five years and older fully vaccinated [2], falling short of the objectives of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccinate with Confidence Strategy [3]. By December 2021, unvaccinated individuals have a four times higher risk of testing positive for COVID and 15 times higher risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated individuals [4]. Although this solid evidence confirms the efficacy of vaccines in preventing severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection, a considerable proportion of the US population hesitate to be fully vaccinated, and this issue is relatively prevalent in minority groups, such as people of color.

People of color bear a significant burden of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to Whites in similar age groups, but they still lag behind Whites in vaccination rates [5]. Disparities in vaccine uptake are attributed to multiple dimensions of structural inequality. Given historical and contemporary health care injustices, the African American (AA) population may not readily accept the COVID-19 vaccine as efficacious, safe, or accessible [6, 7].

Moreover, recent studies have shown that misconceptions about the vaccine, mistrust in the health care system, and lack of access to health services may discourage people from getting vaccinated, especially communities of color [5, 8-11]. The CDC and other health agencies have made great efforts to increase access to COVID-19 vaccines. However, mis- and disinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines remains prevalent, contributing to vaccine concerns among AA communities, which in turn cause vaccine hesitancy and impede vaccine uptake in the AA population. Research suggests that the spread of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine may be an important driver of vaccine hesitancy, whereas conversely, exposure to reliable medical information may increase vaccine acceptance [10, 12, 13]. Hence, reducing spread of misinformation and promoting access to reliable information is warranted for vaccination promotion in AA communities.

Effective health communication is essential to mitigate the negative impacts of mis- and disinformation, deliver accurate messages to the public and promote vaccine uptake in the target audience [14]. Health communication is an application of communication concepts and theories to health-related interactions and processes that occur between individuals to improve health [15]. Health messages can influence psychological beliefs that can motivate individuals to engage in specific health behaviors [16]. Health communication can be strengthened by using efficient campaign strategies and social marketing [17] for reaching target populations and influence voluntary behaviors to further improve health disparities for individuals and their communities [18, 19]. Thus, health communication interventions can help eliminate misinformation and increase confidence in vaccination in the AA community [20]. Many efforts have been undertaken by health departments, agencies, and the CDC to develop, pilot-test, and implement various health communication interventions to promote vaccine uptake [21-24].

To better tailor health communication to AA communities, it is important to understand the challenges people in AA communities face in accessing reliable vaccine information and the promising strategies based on voices from these communities. Current effective health communication interventions specifically targeting the AA community remain to be understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore barriers to accessing reliable COVID-19 vaccine information in AA communities and to identify strategies recommended by community leaders for implementing vaccination health communication interventions.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1 Study design and data collection

We conducted a qualitative study with community leaders by holding two focus groups discussions (FGDs) on October 8 and October 29, 2021. Each FGD had eight to ten participants to discuss access barriers to reliable COVID-19 vaccine information in AA communities in South Carolina (SC) and to identify their recommendations on health communication interventions. Eligibility criteria for recruitment included living in SC, being 18 years old and older, and being a part of AA communities. The goal was to recruit six to ten community leaders for each focus group. A total of 18 community leaders was recruited from Richland, Orangeburg, and Bamberg Counties in SC (Table 1). Both FGDs were conducted online via Zoom meetings [25]. The facilitator explained the purpose of the study prior to each FGD. Online informed consent was signed by each participant at the beginning of the FGDs. The discussions were recorded with the consent of the participants. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of xxxx. Each FGD lasted approximately one hour, and the facilitator moderated the group discussions. Two researchers took field notes during each FGD. Upon completion of the FGD, each participant received a $50 gift card as compensation for their time.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/22/2022.03.21.22272728/T1)

Table 1. 
Demographic characteristics of the participants in the FGDs.

According to recommended focus group methodology [26], the University of xxxx and the South Carolina Community Health Worker Association teams developed and modified a discussion guide. The discussion guide aimed to identify socio-behavioral drivers of vaccine uptake and understand barriers to accessing reliable COVID-19 vaccine information in AA communities in SC. The specific objectives of the FGDs included understanding: 1) reasons for hesitancy in COVID-19 vaccines; 2) typical misinformation and misconceptions about the vaccine; 3) facilitators and barriers to accessing reliable information; and 4) recommendations for health communication interventions to promote vaccination. During the FGDs, facilitators followed the discussion guide but asked probing questions to gain more in-depth information about the topic and to control the dynamics of the discussion for open communication among community leaders.

### 2.2 Data analysis

FGDs were video recorded using Zoom [25] and transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai [27]. The transcripts were reviewed and edited to ensure accuracy. Qualitative data analysis software QSR NVivo 12 [28] was used to analyze FDG data. A thematic analysis approach [29] was used for data analysis, querying the most used phrases and expanding the search to their contexts. Coding was performed by two researchers for comparison and agreement on the most significant themes. All disagreements in coding were agreed upon through discussion and reviewing the transcripts again.

## 3. Results

Eighteen community leaders participated in the study, out of which five were males and 13 were females. These participants worked primarily in colleges, churches, and health agencies. According to the FGDs, all participants shared barriers to accessing reliable information in their communities and recommendations for future health communication. Barriers to accessing reliable information, including structural barriers, informational barriers, and lack of trust have led to high levels of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in AA communities. Current strategies to disseminate vaccine information and promote vaccination varied within participants’ communities and can be categorized as: recruiting trusted messengers, reaching out to target populations, and conducting health communication campaigns.

### 3.1 Barriers to accessing reliable information

Barriers to accessing reliable information derive from structural factors, such as historical influence of the stigma against AA communities. Two participants emphasized the barriers created by historical reasons, mentioning the stigma and fear that the Tuskegee experiment brought to the AA community. For example, one of the participants said, “AA people have stigma about being guinea pigs due to the effects of the Tuskegee experiment, and they still need time to build their trust back.” In addition, another participant mentioned that initial financial incentives made some people less trusting of the vaccine, thus creating a barrier. Some believe there is a conspiracy to try to convince people of misinformation, and that the money given for vaccination is meant to entice people to get a microchip implanted. “Everybody is going to run with their own story, so no one is really getting a concrete message…heard one thing about the message that they’re putting a chip in your body, they’re monitoring you…,” said the participant.

Along with structural barriers, informational barriers were also present, with overwhelming, unclearly explained, and inconsistent information from multiple sources, making people feel confused and exhausted. One participant said, “The main reason (for not getting vaccinated) is the whole concept [vaccine uptake] is not explained clearly to the community. There is more harm if you don’t take it, and this needs more explanation (risk/benefit assessment).” Younger participants said, “People don’t have true education about a lot of people don’t really know the true science behind the vaccine and how it works. People are afraid of things they don’t understand.” Moreover, misinformation and conspiracy theories that are widespread on social media pose a significant challenge for young adults to get reliable information. One participant mentioned that the younger generation spends a lot more time on social media than traditional media (e.g., newspapers, radio, TV). The younger generation is attracted to more entertaining social media, which makes them more susceptible to misinformation.

Uncertainty about the status quo due to information barriers also creates distrust of healthcare providers and government authorities. One participant said, “When they told everyone that you can go from wearing a mask you didn’t have to wear it anymore, and then they came back and said oh well, you do need to wear it again. I think people started losing trust in the powers that be … the CDC are different government entities, people started to question if they really knew what they were doing. I think that kind of created barriers.” There was also a concern that politics is driving the process, making it increasingly difficult to know who to trust for reliable scientific information about vaccines. One participant said, “Even in politics as well, people are receiving so much information that it’s sometimes hard to digest and find out where the truth really lies.”

### 3.2 Suggestions for recruiting trusted messengers

Some participants suggested involving churches in the promotion to provide accurate information and having pastors lead discussions to make people understand the safety of vaccines. For example, one participant said, “We need pastors in the community to have a discussion, open up their churches to tell the story that needs to be told, and help people understand the vaccine is safe.” Another participant specifically mentioned the AA community, saying “Because most AA people likely will do go to church and they do listen to their pastor…even host a meeting monthly, you will get a lot of participation information.” However, two participants mentioned that churches and pastors are at risk, “a lot of Christians are unvaccinated because they’re saying that the vaccine is the mark of the beast.” If similar vaccine promotion campaigns are held in churches, it is important to first confirm that the pastor’s perspective is consistent with the main goal of the campaigns. In addition, the younger group hardly goes to church now, and one young participant said, “The church approach is only fitting for those who are still physically in that building, I think my generation I think my generation we’re not.”

Other participants mentioned the influence of community leaders who are trusted by local people to facilitate the delivery of vaccine information. People who can validate messages were recommended. One participant said, “Those (trusted people in the community) are the people that you really educate and utilize them to deliver the message… people you trusted in your community will be your best source to validate the message.” However, some participants felt that community leaders may not be the best persons to deliver the message, preferring to have trained professionals use data and factual information to get people to believe in vaccines, saying, “Person who is a trained professional can actually give out information…if I take this vaccine I find out that there is a 90% success rate that I won’t have any significant things happened to me, and I might be more trusting to take the vaccine.” Other potential trusted messengers include elders in the community and people who had experienced COVID-19 themselves. Younger participants mentioned that faculty, coaches, peers, and student leaders could serve as effective messengers. One young participant reported, “Students are more receptive to experts and can have a professional person talk to a mass of students.”

### 3.3 Suggestions for reaching out to target populations

Participants suggested to reach out to the target population through social events, behavioral economics, storytelling, and media strategies. Nearly half of the participants said that homecoming events, football games, and basketball games are good opportunities to reach the target group. Some participants said, “Alumni, people who come back are from the community, and they come to the homecoming. Setting up information centers where we could share vaccine information, just where we are, as a state or as a city with COVID-19.” When people are in a stadium, one participant said, “When people see things about no social distancing or masks at large public events like football games, people become discouraged about severity of disease.”

For the working population, participants said information tables or booths could be set up in organizations and companies to provide vaccination information to employees. In addition, another participant suggested reaching out to targeted populations at statewide HIV/STI conferences and pride festivals. Moreover, behavioral economics tools can help reach a broader population. Although conspiracy theories or beliefs caused difficulties in implementing financial incentives in the early stages, as information became more transparent, tailored incentives are adoptable, such as offering gift cards or grocery vouchers, providing accurate information about vaccination sites, and providing transportation. Some participants also mentioned the importance of involving churches, “Even hosting a church meeting monthly, you will get a lot of participation information.” Additionally, some participants mentioned storytelling as a powerful way to reach target groups, as “Individuals and small communities listen to people who have died in that community, so they will know, that was your neighbor that could have been you.”

Participants indicated that using various media to reach the target group would be most effective. Different age groups use different social media to get information. For example, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter are more likely to reach younger people. People need visual information, while traditional news outlets and TV commercials can reach older people. Young participants said, “People [in] my age would be like on Instagram or TikTok or Twitter, there will be a great way to reach to people my age, but then older people of age, I would say, maybe the news and TV commercials.” Notably, one participant mentioned that we need to focus on people who do not have access to social events or computers. He suggested “Pay attention to those who don’t that socially engaged, disseminate flyers in grocery stores such as Walmart and Target.”

### 3.4 Recommendations for health communication

In terms of health communication, two participants suggested involving churches to provide reliable information. Another participant suggested that open dialogue with doctors could contribute to more transparent information. Regarding panel discussions and open dialogue, participants said, “Open conversation is good, especially to understand and learn more about vaccine from professional persons, but the communication are for everyday people, no jargons.” Several participants suggested involving people who have recovered from COVID-19 in health communication campaigns. They believed that storytelling is the best way to deliver the message. In health communication, it is necessary to have people who are previously infected share their experiences to emphasize the importance of accurate information and vaccine protection to the target population.

## 4. Discussion

As a new vaccine in an evolving pandemic, the COVID-19 vaccines are particularly misunderstood and, in some cases, doubted. To address this issue, effective health communication across populations is crucial to promoting vaccination [30]. This study explored barriers to accessing reliable information in AA communities and gained insights from community leaders on effective strategies for health communication interventions. Gaining the trust of the AA community is essential for health communication given the mistrust in the health care system due to historical factors [31]. Our results suggest that trusted messengers are important in the dissemination of accurate COVID-19 vaccine information and promotion of vaccination behaviors in AA communities. One study showed that AAs were two to three times more likely to trust charities and religious leaders than Whites [32]. In Musa et al.’s research [33], older AAs reported significantly higher trust in informal sources of health care information (e.g., family, friends, church, and religious leaders) than Whites. Our findings are consistent with previous research findings that trusted messengers, including church members, pastors, community leaders, older adults, those who have experienced COVID-19, and health professionals, bear an important responsibility for disseminating information in the AA community [34-36]. In addition, based on the diversity of community leaders involved in FGDs, we also found that student leaders, faculty, and coaches at colleges and universities can serve as key messengers to deliver vaccination messages to AA students. Such messenger-led health communication interventions are simple and efficient in design, can give voice to science from all stages of vaccine development to vaccination, and have the desired impact in the larger population.

It is worth noting that multiple sources of information, ranging from official websites to various social media platforms, may provide conflicting information, leading to public confusion [37]. Similarly, in our FGDs, we found that some groups such as older adults, professionals, and college students relied on social media, news reports, and discussions among family and friends as platforms and channels for information about the COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, people that relied on less reliable sources of information had a higher likelihood of receiving incorrect information, which led to higher levels of vaccination hesitancy. In contrast, people that obtained information through physicians and professionals close to them had a better understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, it is important for public health officials to work with community leaders to employ open and transparent dialogue in the implementation of health communication activities to support accurate vaccine messaging that is culturally appropriate for the AA community [38]. Developing an appropriate Information Education Communication (IEC) approach to build positive attitudes toward vaccines by spreading awareness of vaccine availability, procedures, and benefits through mainstream and social media is critical to vaccine acceptance [39, 40]. Additionally, it was interesting that participants mentioned incentives such as payment for vaccines as causing suspicion. Moving forward, campaigns need to be careful about incentivizing vaccines and be sure that explanation and clear communication is paramount.

One of our valuable findings is that setting up information tables at homecoming events, football/basketball games, regional conferences, and community parades were explicitly mentioned in the FGDs with community leaders as good opportunities to reach target populations and implement health communication campaigns. Unlike the potential threat of questionable information sources on social media platforms [41], it is more effective to provide easily accessible and reliable information where people live, work, learn, pray, play, and gather [42]. Moreover, in-person social events can reach and engage a more diverse group of people, especially those who do not use social media.

An important contribution of this study is collecting and analyzing the experiences of various community leaders to better understand information barriers and effective communication intervention strategies related to COVID-19 vaccination among AA communities. However, the current study has limitations. Our strategy of utilizing convenience sampling resulted in more than half of the participants being from colleges, resulting in this study capturing the opinions of community leaders in only a portion of the field. Therefore, future studies could utilize stratified sampling to improve the accuracy and representativeness of the results by reducing sampling bias. Future research also needs to expand to other important stakeholders that play an important role in health communication (e.g., AA associations).

## 5. Conclusion

The scope and challenges of COVID-19 vaccine dissemination and promotion are unprecedented, especially in AA communities. Vaccination hesitancy in AA communities is largely driven by misinformation and mistrust. Therefore, vaccine promotion interventions should be based on sustained community engagement, trust-building activities, and transparent communication about vaccine development. Health communication interventions play a particularly important role in vaccine promotion. Accurate messaging, communication, and behavioral interventions require community support and engagement. To address the challenges of vaccination in AA communities in the Southern States, our study explored the impact of the threat of COVID-19 mis- and disinformation and barriers to accessing accurate information in AA communities, as well as understanding how health communication interventions can be more effective from the perspective of community leaders. When conducting health communication interventions, we suggest strategies that use a combination of credibility of key messengers, multi-sourcing of social media, and accessibility of social events to increase trust and confidence in vaccination in the AA community. Furthermore, tailoring health communication interventions for different groups (e.g., by age) may help reduce vaccination hesitancy, thus promoting vaccination rates in AA communities in the Southern States.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

## Declarations and Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Funding

This study is funded by NIH grant R01AI127203-4S1 and CDC grant U48DP006401-02-01. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or CDC.

## Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the participants in the focus group discussions, our local partner South Carolina Community Health Worker Association (SCCHWA), especially Ms. Donna Mack, Ms. Lynda Guess, and Mr. Rashad Paige for their time and efforts in recruiting participants, modifying the guideline, and facilitating the focus group discussion. We also thank Ms. Audrey Auen for her edits in the first draft.

*   Received March 21, 2022.
*   Revision received March 21, 2022.
*   Accepted March 22, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  [1].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker. 2022.
    
    

2.  [2].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccinations. 2022.
    
    

3.  [3].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines. 2022.
    
    

4.  [4].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. 2022.
    
    

5.  [5].Ndugga N, Hill L, Artiga S, Haldar S. Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2022.
    
    

6.  [6].Dada D, Djiometio JN, McFadden SM, Demeke J, Vlahov D, Wilton L, et al. Strategies That Promote Equity in COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake for Black Communities: a Review. Journal of urban health. 2022.
    
    

7.  [7].Williams DR, Cooper LA. COVID-19 and Health Equity—A New Kind of “Herd Immunity”. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2020;323:2478–80.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.8051&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32391852&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 

8.  [8].Bogart LM, Ojikutu BO, Tyagi K, Klein DJ, Mutchler MG, Dong L, et al. COVID-19 Related Medical Mistrust, Health Impacts, and Potential Vaccine Hesitancy Among Black Americans Living with HIV. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2020;86:200–7.
    
    

9.  [9].Kapadia F. Vaccine Solidarity Requires Social Justice: A Public Health of Consequence, February 2022. American journal of public health (1971). 2022;112:202–3.
    
    

10. [10].Charron J, Gautier A, Jestin C. Influence of information sources on vaccine hesitancy and practices/Influence des sources d’information sur l’hesitation vaccinale et les pratiques vaccinales. Médecine et maladies infectieuses. 2020;50:727.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.medmal.2020.01.010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 

11. [11].Razai MS, Osama T, McKechnie DGJ, Majeed A. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups. BMJ (Online). 2021;372:n513-n.
    
    

12. [12].Neely S, Eldredge C, Sanders R. Health Information Seeking Behaviors on Social Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among American Social Networking Site Users: Survey Study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2021;23:e29802–e.
    
    

13. [13].Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour. 2021;5:337–48.
    
    

14. [14].Park SE. Epidemiology, virology, and clinical features of severe acute respiratory syndrome -coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2; Coronavirus Disease-19). Clinical and experimental pediatrics. 2020;63:119–24.
    
    

15. [15].Schiavo R. Health communication : from theory to practice. Second edition. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2014.
    
    

16. [16].Fishbein M, Yzer MC. Using Theory to Design Effective Health Behavior Interventions. Communication theory. 2003;13:164–83.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183297100003&link_type=ISI) 

17. [17].Andreasen AR. Social Marketing: Its Definition and Domain. Journal of public policy & marketing. 1994;13:108–14.
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NN34100009&link_type=ISI) 

18. [18].French J, Deshpande S, Evans W, Obregon R. Key Guidelines in Developing a Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17:5893.
    
    

19. [19].Evans WD, French J. Demand Creation for COVID-19 Vaccination: Overcoming Vaccine Hesitancy through Social Marketing. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9:319.
    
    

20. [20].Neely S, Eldredge C, Ersing R, Remington C. Vaccine Hesitancy and Exposure to Misinformation: a Survey Analysis. Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM. 2021;37:179–87.
    
    

21. [21].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 12 COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies for Your Community.
    
    

22. [22].Ramirez AG, Despres C, Chalela P, Weis J, Sukumaran P, Munoz E, et al. Pilot study of peer modeling with psychological inoculation to promote coronavirus vaccination. Health education research. 2022.
    
    

23. [23].Resnicow K, Bacon E, Yang P, Hawley S, Van Horn ML, An L. Novel Predictors of COVID-19 Protective Behaviors Among US Adults: Cross-sectional Survey. Journal of medical Internet research. 2021;23:e23488.
    
    

24. [24].Francis DB, Mason N, Occa A. Young African Americans’ Communication with Family Members About COVID-19: Impact on Vaccination Intention and Implications for Health Communication Interventions. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021.
    
    

25. [25].Zoom Video Communications Inc. [https://zoom.us/](https://zoom.us/). 2021.
    
    

26. [26].Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research. 5th edition. ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2015.
    
    

27. [27].Otter.ai. [https://otter.ai/](https://otter.ai/). 2022.
    
    

28. [28].QSR International. NVivo. [https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home/](https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home/). 2022.
    
    

29. [29].Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being. 2014;9:26152-.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3402/qhw.v9.26152&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 

30. [30].Schaffer DeRoo S, Pudalov NJ, Fu LY. Planning for a COVID-19 Vaccination Program. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2020;323:2458.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.8711&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 

31. [31].Larson HJ, Heymann DL. Public Health Response to Influenza A(H1N1) as an Opportunity to Build Public Trust. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2010;303:271–2.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2009.2023&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20085957&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 

32. [32].Jackson DN, Peterson EB, Blake KD, Coa K, Chou W-YS. Americans’ Trust in Health Information Sources: Trends and Sociodemographic Predictors. American journal of health promotion. 2019;33:1187–93.
    
    

33. [33].Musa D, Schulz R, Harris R, Silverman M, Thomas SB. Trust in the Health Care System and the Use of Preventive Health Services by Older Black and White Adults. American journal of public health (1971). 2009;99:1293–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2007.123927&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18923129&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267406100028&link_type=ISI) 

34. [34].Cooper LA, Stoney CM. Messages to Increase COVID-19 Knowledge in Communities of Color: What Matters Most? Annals of internal medicine. 2021;174:554–5.
    
    

35. [35].Brewer LC, Asiedu GB, Jones C, Richard M, Erickson J, Weis J, et al. Emergency Preparedness and Risk Communication Among African American Churches: Leveraging a Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership COVID-19 Initiative. Preventing chronic disease. 2020;17:E158–E.
    
    

36. [36].Szilagyi PG, Thomas K, Shah MD, Vizueta N, Cui Y, Vangala S, et al. The role of trust in the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine: Results from a national survey. Preventive medicine. 2021;153:106727-.
    
    

37. [37].Biasio LR, Bonaccorsi G, Lorini C, Pecorelli S. Assessing COVID-19 vaccine literacy: a preliminary online survey. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics. 2021;17:1304–12.
    
    

38. [38].Dempsey AF, Pyrzanowski J, Brewer S, Barnard J, Sevick C, O’Leary ST. Acceptability of using standing orders to deliver human papillomavirus vaccines in the outpatient obstetrician/gynecologist setting. Vaccine. 2015;33:1773–9.
    
    

39. [39].Kumari A, Ranjan P, Chopra S, Kaur D, Kaur T, Kalanidhi KB, et al. What Indians Think of the COVID-19 vaccine: A qualitative study comprising focus group discussions and thematic analysis. Diabetes & metabolic syndrome clinical research & reviews. 2021;15:679–82.
    
    

40. [40].Steffens MS, Dunn AG, Wiley KE, Leask J. How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation. BMC public health. 2019;19:1348-.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F22%2F2022.03.21.22272728.atom) 

41. [41].Cinelli M, Quattrociocchi W, Galeazzi A, Valensise CM, Brugnoli E, Schmidt AL, et al. The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific reports. 2020;10:16598-.
    
    

42. [42].Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ways to help increase COVID-19 vaccinations. 2022.