Vaccine Communication: Appeals and Messengers Most Effective for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Ukraine.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine communication has been a challenge, particularly as some populations may be highly distrustful of information from public health or government institutions. To better understand the different communication needs in Ukraine, an online survey panel of 168 Ukrainian participants viewed six COVID-19 vaccination ads with three variations on vaccine messaging appeals (potential economic impacts of COVID-19 infection COVID-19 disease outcomes, and social norms related to vaccination) and two different messengers (a peer or a health provider). The ad featuring a health outcome appeal delivered by a healthcare provider was most favored (n = 53, 31.6%); however, across demographic categories, including vaccine hesitancy categories, participants expressed high levels of approval for all six variations of the COVID-19 vaccine ads. When participants ranked reasons why someone may not accept the COVID-19 vaccine, the most prevalent beliefs identified were that the vaccine was not safe, and that the vaccine was not effective. Findings from this study suggest that vaccine appeals focused on health outcomes delivered by healthcare providers are preferred by most individuals in Ukraine; however, individuals are motivated by a myriad of factors suggesting that for vaccine messaging to be most effective, communication should be varied in both appeal and messenger.

What message appeal and messenger are most persuasive for COVID-19 vaccine uptake: Results from a 5-country survey in India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Ukraine.

Effective strategies to encourage COVID-19 vaccination should consider how health communication can be tailored to specific contexts. Our study aimed to evaluate the influence of three specific messaging appeals from two kinds of messengers on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in diverse countries. We surveyed 953 online participants in five countries (India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Ukraine). We assessed participants' perceptions of three messaging appeals of vaccination-COVID-19 disease health outcomes, social norms related to COVID-19 vaccination, and economic impact of COVID-19-from two messengers, healthcare providers (HCP), and peers. We examined participants' ad preference and vaccine hesitancy using multivariable multinomial logistic regression. Participants expressed a high level of approval for all the ads. The healthcare outcome-healthcare provider ad was most preferred among participants from India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Ukraine. Participants in Kenya reported a preference for the health outcome-peer ad. The majority of participants in each country expressed high levels of vaccine hesitancy. However, in a final logistic regression model participant characteristics were not significantly related to vaccine hesitancy. These findings suggest that appeals related to health outcomes, economic benefit, and social norms are all acceptable to diverse general populations, while specific audience segments (i.e., mothers, younger adults, etc.) may have preferences for specific appeals over others. Tailored approaches, or approaches that are developed with the target audience's concerns and preferences in mind, will be more effective than broad-based or mass appeals.

Message testing in India for COVID-19 vaccine uptake: What appeal and what messenger are most persuasive?

Few studies have examined the relationships between the different aspects of vaccination communication and vaccine attitudes. We aimed to evaluate the influence of three unique messaging appeal framings of vaccination from two types of messengers on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in India. We surveyed 534 online participants in India using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) from December 2021 through January 2022. We assessed participants' perception of three messaging appeals of vaccination - COVID-19 disease health outcomes, social norms related to vaccination, and economic impact of COVID-19 - from two messengers, healthcare providers (HCP) and peers. Using a multivariable multinomial logistic regression, we examined participants' ad preference and vaccine hesitancy. Participants expressed a high level of approval for all of the ads, with >80% positive responses for all questions across ads. Overall ads delivered by health care workers were preferred by a majority of participants in our study (n = 381, 71.4%). Ad preference ranged from 3.6% (n = 19) social norm/peer ad to 32.4% (n = 173) health outcome/HCP ad and half of participants preferred the health outcome ad (n = 279, 52.3%). Additionally, vaccine hesitancy was not related to preference (p = .513): HCP vs. peer ads (p = .522); message type (p = .284). The results suggest that all three appeals tested were generally acceptable, as well as the two messenger types, although preference was for the health care provider messenger and health outcome appeal. Individuals are motivated and influenced by a multitude of factors, requiring vaccine messaging that is persuasive, salient, and induces contextually relevant action.