Spillover effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on attitudes to influenza and childhood vaccines.

The current study sought to determine whether public perceptions of other vaccines and diseases than COVID-19 have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We longitudinally examined whether there had been a change from before the COVID-19 pandemic to during the pandemic in: (a) influenza vaccination behaviour and intentions; (b) the perceived benefit of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (c) the perceived safety of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (d) the perceived severity of measles and influenza; and (e) trust in healthcare professionals in two samples of Finnish adults (N = 205 in Study 1 and N = 197 in Study 2). The findings showed that during the pandemic, more people than before had received or wanted to receive the influenza vaccine. The respondents also believed that influenza was more dangerous during the pandemic and that vaccinations were safer and more beneficial. On the other hand, for childhood vaccines only perceived safety increased. Finally, in one of the studies, people had more confidence in medical professionals during the pandemic than they had before. Together, these findings imply a spillover of the COVID-19 pandemic on how people view other vaccines and illnesses.

Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19.

As studies indicate that people perceive COVID-19 as a threatening disease, the demand for a vaccine against the disease could be expected to be high. Vaccine safety concerns might nevertheless outweigh the perceived disease risks when an individual decides whether or not to accept the vaccine. We investigated the role of perceived risk of COVID-19 (i.e., perceived likelihood of infection, perceived disease severity, and disease-related worry) and perceived safety of a prospective vaccine against COVID-19 in predicting intentions to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Three Finnish samples were surveyed: 825 parents of small children, 205 individuals living in an area with suboptimal vaccination coverage, and 1325 Facebook users nationwide. As points of reference, we compared the perceptions of COVID-19 to those of influenza and measles. COVID-19 was perceived as a threatening disease-more so than influenza and measles. The strongest predictor of COVID-19 vaccination intentions was trusting the safety of the potential vaccine. Those perceiving COVID-19 as a severe disease were also slightly more intent on taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Informing the public about the safety of a forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine should be the focus for health authorities aiming to achieve a high vaccine uptake.

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Tailoring interventions to suit self-reported format preference does not decrease vaccine hesitancy.

Individually tailored vaccine hesitancy interventions are considered auspicious for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. In two studies, we measured self-reported format preference for statistical vs. anecdotal information in vaccine hesitant individuals, and experimentally manipulated the format in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions were presented (statistical vs. anecdotal). Regardless of whether people received interventions that were in line with their format preference, the interventions did not influence their vaccine attitudes or vaccination intentions. Instead, a stronger preference for anecdotal information was associated with perceiving the material in both the statistical and the anecdotal interventions as more frustrating, less relevant, and less helpful. However, even if the participants reacted negatively to both intervention formats, the reactions to the statistical interventions were consistently less negative. These results suggest that tailoring COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions to suit people's format preference, might not be a viable tool for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. The results further imply that using statistics-only interventions with people who hold anti-vaccination attitudes may be a less risky choice than using only anecdotal testimonies.

Public policy and conspiracies: The case of mandates.

Although conspiracy theories are only endorsed by a minority, conspiracy theories can nonetheless compromise public health measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals who endorse conspiracy theories were less likely to wear masks, comply with social distancing, or get vaccinated. This poses a challenge to public health policy, in particular because vaccine uptake lags behind targets because of resistance from a relatively small, but highly vocal, number of people. One policy tool is to enact vaccine mandates, which, while controversial, have successfully increased vaccination uptake. In this article, we review the evidence about whether mandates can be successful, and whether they trigger increased opposition and conspiracy beliefs. We discuss the implications for using mandates in public health policy and argue that decisions about mandates need to be weighed against the consequences of alternative measures-which may also increase conspiracy beliefs albeit for different reasons.

Measuring psychosocial determinants of vaccination behavior in healthcare professionals: validation of the Pro-VC-Be short-form questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine confidence among health care professionals (HCPs) is a key determinant of vaccination behaviors. We validate a short-form version of the 31-item Pro-VC-Be (Health Professionals Vaccine Confidence and Behaviors) questionnaire that measures HCPs' confidence in and commitment to vaccination. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among 2,696 HCPs established a long-form tool to measure 10 dimensions of psychosocial determinants of vaccination behaviors. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models tested the construct validity of 69,984 combinations of items in a 10-item short form tool. The criterion validity of this tool was tested with four behavioral and attitudinal outcomes using weighted modified Poisson regressions. An immunization resource score was constructed from summing the responses of the dimensions that can influence HCPs' pro-vaccination behaviors: vaccine confidence, proactive efficacy, and trust in authorities. RESULTS: The short-form tool showed good construct validity in CFA analyses (RMSEA = 0.035 [0.024; 0.045]; CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.918; SRMR 0.027) and comparable criterion validity to the long-form tool. The immunization resource score showed excellent criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Pro-VC-Be short-form showed good construct validity and criterion validity similar to the long-form and can therefore be used to measure determinants of vaccination behaviors among HCPs.

Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media.

Online misinformation continues to have adverse consequences for society. Inoculation theory has been put forward as a way to reduce susceptibility to misinformation by informing people about how they might be misinformed, but its scalability has been elusive both at a theoretical level and a practical level. We developed five short videos that inoculate people against manipulation techniques commonly used in misinformation: emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks. In seven preregistered studies, i.e., six randomized controlled studies (n = 6464) and an ecologically valid field study on YouTube (n = 22,632), we find that these videos improve manipulation technique recognition, boost confidence in spotting these techniques, increase people's ability to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy content, and improve the quality of their sharing decisions. These effects are robust across the political spectrum and a wide variety of covariates. We show that psychological inoculation campaigns on social media are effective at improving misinformation resilience at scale.

When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation.

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

Papers Please - Predictive Factors of National and International Attitudes Toward Immunity and Vaccination Passports: Online Representative Surveys.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are introducing digital passports that allow citizens to return to normal activities if they were previously infected with (immunity passport) or vaccinated against (vaccination passport) SARS-CoV-2. To be effective, policy decision-makers must know whether these passports will be widely accepted by the public and under what conditions. This study focuses attention on immunity passports, as these may prove useful in countries both with and without an existing COVID-19 vaccination program; however, our general findings also extend to vaccination passports. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess attitudes toward the introduction of immunity passports in six countries, and determine what social, personal, and contextual factors predicted their support. METHODS: We collected 13,678 participants through online representative sampling across six countries-Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom-during April to May of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, and assessed attitudes and support for the introduction of immunity passports. RESULTS: Immunity passport support was moderate to low, being the highest in Germany (775/1507 participants, 51.43%) and the United Kingdom (759/1484, 51.15%); followed by Taiwan (2841/5989, 47.44%), Australia (963/2086, 46.16%), and Spain (693/1491, 46.48%); and was the lowest in Japan (241/1081, 22.94%). Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used to assess predictive factors for immunity passport support across countries. International results showed neoliberal worldviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.22), personal concern (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.16), perceived virus severity (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), the fairness of immunity passports (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.36-2.66), liking immunity passports (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.61-2.94), and a willingness to become infected to gain an immunity passport (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.51-1.68) were all predictive factors of immunity passport support. By contrast, gender (woman; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.82-0.98), immunity passport concern (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.65), and risk of harm to society (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.76) predicted a decrease in support for immunity passports. Minor differences in predictive factors were found between countries and results were modeled separately to provide national accounts of these data. CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that support for immunity passports is predicted by the personal benefits and societal risks they confer. These findings generalized across six countries and may also prove informative for the introduction of vaccination passports, helping policymakers to introduce effective COVID-19 passport policies in these six countries and around the world.

Prebunking messaging to inoculate against COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: an effective strategy for public health

Background Objective Method Results Conclusion Vaccination coverage needs to reach more than 80% to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy, fuelled by misinformation, may jeopardize this goal. Unvaccinated older adults are not only at risk of COVID-19 complications but may also be misled by false information. Prebunking, based on inoculation theory, involves ‘forewarning people [of] and refuting information that challenges their existing belief or behavior’.To assess the effectiveness of inoculation communication strategies in countering disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines among Canadians aged 50 years and older, as measured by their COVID-19 vaccine intentions.Applying an online experiment with a mixed pre–post design and a sample size of 2500 participants, we conducted a national randomized survey among English and French-speaking Canadians aged 50 years and older in March 2021. Responses to two different disinformation messages were evaluated. Our primary outcome was the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, with attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine a secondary outcome. The McNemar test and multivariate logistic regression analysis on paired data were conducted when the outcome was dichotomized. Wilcoxon sign rank test and Kruskal–Wallis were used to test difference scores between pre- and post-tests by condition.Group comparisons between those who received only disinformation and those who received the inoculation message show that prebunking messages may safeguard intention to get vaccinated and have a protective effect against disinformation.Prebunking messages should be considered as one strategy for public health communication to combat misinformation. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Communication in Healthcare is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

An instrument to measure psychosocial determinants of health care professionals' vaccination behavior: Validation of the Pro-VC-Be questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The lack of validated instruments assessing vaccine hesitancy/confidence among health care professionals (HCPs) for themselves, and their patients led us to develop and validate the Pro-VC-Be instrument to measure vaccine confidence and other psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccination behavior among diverse HCPs in different countries. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey in October-November 2020 among 1,249 GPs in France, 432 GPs in French-speaking parts of Belgium, and 1,055 nurses in Quebec (Canada), all participating in general population immunization. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses evaluated the instrument's construct validity. We used HCPs' self-reported vaccine recommendations to patients, general immunization activity, self-vaccination, and future COVID-19 vaccine acceptance to test criterion validity. RESULTS: The final results indicated a 6-factor structure with good fit: vaccine confidence (combining complacency, perceived vaccine risks, perceived benefit-risk balance, perceived collective responsibility), trust in authorities, perceived constraints, proactive efficacy (combining commitment to vaccination and self-efficacy), reluctant trust, and openness to patients. The instrument showed good convergent and criterion validity and adequate discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the Pro-VC-Be is a valid instrument for measuring psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccination behaviors in different settings. Its validation is currently underway in Europe among various HCPs in different languages.

Believing in nothing and believing in everything: The underlying cognitive paradox of anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitudes.

A major reason why some people oppose the COVID-19 vaccine is the influence of misinformation. This study suggests that the cognitive paradox of simultaneously believing known facts less and new, "alternative facts" more is the outcome of a distrust mindset, characterized by spontaneous consideration of alternatives, including misinformation. We captured this paradox and its correlates in a scale that measures individuals' ability to distinguish between the truth value of well-established facts ("Earth rotates eastward around its own axis, completing a full rotation once in about 24 h") and baseless "alternative facts" ("Earth can change its rotation direction and flip its axis, and we will never notice it"). Assuming that an anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitude arises from a chronically distrusting mindset, we sampled participants on Prolific who were pre-screened for their COVID-19 vaccine attitude based on earlier responses. We found that people who rejected COVID-19 vaccines believed well-established facts less, and "alternative facts" more, compared to supporters of the vaccine. Less discernment between truths and falsehoods was correlated with less intellectual humility, more distrust and greater reliance on one's intuition. This observed thought pattern offers insights into theoretical understanding of the antecedents of belief in "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories.

Losses, hopes, and expectations for sustainable futures after COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused immense distress but also created opportunity for radical change. Two main avenues for recovery from the pandemic have been discussed: A “back to normal” that foregrounds economic recovery, and a sustainable and progressive “build back better” approach that seeks to address global problems such as inequality and climate change. The article reports two experiments conducted on representative British and American samples (N = 600 and N = 800, respectively, for the two experiments) that show that people in both countries overall prefer a progressive future to a return to normal, although that preference is stronger on the political left and center-left with ambivalence prevailing on the right. However, irrespective of political leanings, people consider a return to normal more likely than a progressive future. People also mistakenly believe that others want the progressive scenarios less, and the return to normal more, than they actually do. The divergence between what people want and what they think others want represents an instance of pluralistic ignorance, which arises when public discourse is not reflecting people’s actual opinions. Publicizing public opinion is thus crucial to facilitate a future with broad support. In additional open-ended items, participants cited working from home, reduced commuting, and a collective sense of civility as worth retaining post pandemic.

The behavioral immune system and vaccination intentions during the coronavirus pandemic.

The behavioral immune system is considered to be a psychological adaptation that decreases the risk of infection. Research suggests that, in the current environment, this system can produce attitudes with negative health consequences, such as increased vaccine hesitancy. In three studies, we investigated whether two facets of the behavioral immune system-germ aversion (i.e., aversion to potential pathogen transmission) and perceived infectability (i.e., perceived susceptibility to disease)-predicted intentions to accept COVID-19 and influenza vaccination during the pandemic. The behavioral immune system mechanisms were measured before the COVID-19 pandemic in one study, and during the pandemic in two. In contrast to previous research, those with higher germ aversion during the pandemic perceived vaccines to be safer and had higher intentions to accept vaccination. Germ aversion before the pandemic was not associated with vaccination intentions. Individuals who perceived themselves as more susceptible to disease were slightly more willing to accept vaccination. We conjecture that high disease threat reverses the relationship between the behavioral immune system response and vaccination. As the associations were weak, individual differences in germ aversion and perceived infectability are of little practical relevance for vaccine uptake.

Psychological factors shaping public responses to COVID-19 digital contact tracing technologies in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen one of the first large-scale uses of digital contact tracing to track a chain of infection and contain the spread of a virus. The new technology has posed challenges both for governments aiming at high and effective uptake and for citizens weighing its benefits (e.g., protecting others' health) against the potential risks (e.g., loss of data privacy). Our cross-sectional survey with repeated measures across four samples in Germany ([Formula: see text]) focused on psychological factors contributing to the public adoption of digital contact tracing. We found that public acceptance of privacy-encroaching measures (e.g., granting the government emergency access to people's medical records or location tracking data) decreased over the course of the pandemic. Intentions to use contact tracing apps-hypothetical ones or the Corona-Warn-App launched in Germany in June 2020-were high. Users and non-users of the Corona-Warn-App differed in their assessment of its risks and benefits, in their knowledge of the underlying technology, and in their reasons to download or not to download the app. Trust in the app's perceived security and belief in its effectiveness emerged as psychological factors playing a key role in its adoption. We incorporate our findings into a behavioral framework for digital contact tracing and provide policy recommendations.

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. METHODS: For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. FINDINGS: From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Liberty and the pursuit of science denial

Any strategy to mitigate climate change will have economic and political implications that are incompatible with libertarian ideals of free markets. These political implications have created an environment of rhetorical adversity in which disinformation is systematically disseminated by a variety of politically and economically motivated actors who seek to delay or defang climate policies. I review the strategies of climate denial and how they fit within an historical arc ranging from denial of the adverse health effects of tobacco to the denial of facts and policies involving the COVID-19 pandemic. I review communicative countermeasures and conclude by pointing to the necessity to examine whether science denial is a necessary implication of libertarianism or whether it can be reframed to become an ally in climate mitigation and public-health policies.

Unwillingness to engage in behaviors that protect against COVID-19: the role of conspiracy beliefs, trust, and endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.