A Comparative Case Study Analysis: Applying the HIPE Framework to Combat Harmful Health Information and Drive COVID-19 Vaccine Adoption in Underserved Communities.

This descriptive, observational paper utilizes the comparative case study approach to analyze the application of the HIPE™ Framework to two health campaigns addressing vaccine hesitancy in underserved communities. Exposure to inaccurate/misleading health information impacts vaccination adoption, especially for individuals with low health/digital literacy. Underserved groups-like minority, racial/ethnic, or rural populations-typically have lower literacy and higher rates of vaccine hesitancy. Grounded in persuasion and behavioral change theory, the Health Information Persuasion Exploration (HIPE™) Framework was applied to the Black/Haitian community in Miami-Dade, Florida and the Migrant Agricultural Worker Community in Central Valley, California. The campaigns addressed each community's unique characteristics via Detect, Analyze, Design, and Evaluate phases of the HIPE framework. Both campaigns achieved their respective vaccine uptake goals. For Miami-Dade, over 850 vaccinations were administered (the goal was 800 vaccinations), and vaccination rates increased by 25.22%. In Central Valley, vaccination rates for 5-11-year-old children in Merced and Stanislaus counties increased about 20% and 14%, respectively, and overall vaccination rates increased compared to surrounding counties. Discussion of the results and recommendations for future research highlight the potential efficacy of applying the HIPE™ Framework for developing health campaigns and response strategies to improve health outcomes.

COVID-19 Vaccine Discourse on Twitter: A Content Analysis of Persuasion Techniques, Sentiment and Mis/Disinformation.

This research aims to understand the persuasion techniques used in Twitter posts about COVID-19 vaccines by the different vaccine sentiments (i.e., Pro-Vaccine, Anti-Vaccine, and Neutral) using the Elaboration Likelihood Model, Social judgment Theory, and the Extended Parallel Process Model as theoretical frameworks. A content analysis was conducted on a data set of 1,000 Twitter posts. The corpus of Tweets was examined using the persuasion frameworks; tweets that were identified as emanating from bots were further examined. Results found Anti-Vaccine messages predominantly used Anecdotal stories, Humor/Sarcasm, and Celebrity figures as persuasion techniques, while Pro-Vaccine messages primarily used Information, Celebrity figures, and Participation. Results also showed the Anti-Vaccine messages primarily focused on values related to the categories of Safety, Political/Conspiracy Theories, and Choice. Finally, results revealed Anti-Vaccine messages primarily used Perceived Severity and Perceived Susceptibility, which are fear appeal elements. The findings for messages by bots were comparable to the messages in the larger corpus of tweets. Based on the findings, a response framework-Health Information Persuasion Exploration (HIPE)-is proposed to address mis/disinformation and Anti-Vaccine messaging. The results of this study and the HIPE framework can inform a national COVID-19 vaccine health campaign to increase vaccine adoption.

Measuring Health Literacy Levels of a Patient Portal Using the CDC's Clear Communication Index.

Once promised to revolutionize health care, patient portals have yet to fully achieve their potential of improving communication between patients and clinicians. In fact, their use can be detrimental to many consumers due to their limited literacy and numeracy skills. This study demonstrates how applying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clear Communication Index to a patient portal can be used to identify opportunities for better patient communication and engagement. The Clear Communication Index contains 20 scored items grounded in communication science to enhance patients' understanding of health information. The Index was applied to one portal used by over 80,000 patients in 12 primary care practices: MyPreventiveCare. This portal was selected because of its ability to personalize preventive and chronic care information by internally using content featuring health literacy principles and linking patients' externally to trusted materials. Thirty-seven frequently visited portal pages (17 internal and 20 external) were evaluated based on the Index's four main variables. The overall score for the portal was 72%, which falls below the 90% threshold to be considered clear communication. Internal content scored higher than external (75% vs. 69%). Specific changes to improve the score include simpler language, more specific examples, and clearer numerical explanations.