Framing COVID-19 Preprint Research as Uncertain: A Mixed-Method Study of Public Reactions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists were encouraged to convey uncertainty surrounding preliminary scientific evidence, including mentioning when research is unpublished or unverified by peer review. To understand how public audiences interpret this information, we conducted a mixed method study with U.S. adults. Participants read a news article about preprint COVID-19 vaccine research in early April 2021, just as the vaccine was becoming widely available to the U.S. public. We modified the article to test two ways of conveying uncertainty (hedging of scientific claims and mention of preprint status) in a 2 × 2 between-participants factorial design. To complement this, we collected open-ended data to assess participants' understanding of the concept of a scientific preprint. In all, participants who read hedged (vs. unhedged) versions of the article reported less favorable vaccine attitudes and intentions and found the scientists and news reporting less trustworthy. These effects were moderated by participants' epistemic beliefs and their preference for information about scientific uncertainty. However, there was no impact of describing the study as a preprint, and participants' qualitative responses indicated a limited understanding of the concept. We discuss implications of these findings for communicating initial scientific evidence to the public and we outline important next steps for research and theory-building.

Validating the Communicating Care Needs Tool for HIV (CCNT-HIV).

Health literacy has been identified as an influential factor affecting the HIV care continuum and HIV epidemic, but recent systematic reviews found mixed relationships between health literacy and HIV medication adherence. This may be partially due to discrepancies between health literacy conceptualizations, health literacy measures, and the lifeworld, day-to-day challenges that persons with HIV (PWH) face as they seek and receive care. To address these challenges, a new health literacy tool, Communicating Care Needs Tool for HIV (CCNT-HIV), was developed. With survey responses from 118 PWH, the current study compares CCNT-HIV with the Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool (BRIEF) and the All Aspects of Health Literacy Scale (AAHLS) by conducting a principal component analysis. Six principal components were identified for CCNT-HIV; one principal component was identified for BRIEF; and three principal components were identified for AAHLS. With a correlation analysis, relevance among principal components across the three tools validated CCNT-HIV. This study extended the scope of health literacy measures by emphasizing the relational, multi-variable, collaborative impacts stakeholders make on patients' health management. Practical implications for how health literacy tools, like the CCNT-HIV, can be used to directly benefit patients and their health management are also discussed.

Knowledge Gaps, Cognition and Media Learning: Designing Tailored Messages to Address COVID-19 Communication Inequalities.

Various health and crisis studies have demonstrated support for the existence of knowledge gaps-a hypothesis suggesting that information will reach those in the lower socioeconomic status last, worsening health disparities. At the point at which COVID-19 vaccines were becoming widely accessible, the present study surveyed 651 Black Americans to understand vaccine hesitancy, intentions, and media learning variations after exposure to different types of social media posts about the COVID-19 vaccine. Although exposure to any of the message conditions in our study resulted in a decrease in vaccine hesitancy, we found mixed support for the knowledge gap hypothesis. Results show that lack of knowledge because of socioeconomic status is not a key factor driving vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans. Instead, public communication (government) campaigns may consider focusing on strategies to target Black American communities by age to improve media learning, and consider increasing social control and communal message functions to increase cognitive processing of pro-vaccine messages, and over the longer term, influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake.

How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework.

Understanding how to portray uncertain science to the public is a pressing goal for science communication. This study compared US public audience reactions to a news article depicting a novel discovery in neurogenomics as certain or uncertain, with statements of (un)certainty attributed to either affiliated or unaffiliated scientists. The uncertainty disclosure had no main effect on perceived news article credibility, scientist trustworthiness, objectivity of the scientists' depiction, or willingness to participate in genomic research. However, news credibility and scientist objectivity ratings were higher for uncertainty disclosure attributed to the affiliated scientists. Participants with greater preference for information about uncertainty found the scientists more trustworthy, their depictions more balanced, and the news article more credible when the research was described as uncertain, and these effects were stronger for affiliated scientist attribution. Findings underscore the important roles of disclosure source and audience characteristics in public reactions to media representations of scientific uncertainty.