In a pandemic, there is obvious uncertainty, particularly about the effectiveness of treatments, policies, and outcomes. This is particularly evident through the chronic COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) syndrome. To date, SARS-CoV-2 has captured more than 115 million people and killed more than 2.5 million worldwide. The importance of communication about health care issues in such a situation cannot be overstated.
All health care decisions come with uncertainty. In addition to the common risks that healthcare professionals are aware of, there is also uncertainty about the associated probabilities, known as radical uncertainty or uncertainty. These uncertainties are growing as vaccines are being generated at an unprecedented rate of administration worldwide.
Uncertainty can be 1) misunderstanding (e.g., 10-30% chance of benefiting from treatment), 2) conflict (e.g., experts agree), and 3) lack of information (e.g., insufficient evidence); they are all present at a pandemic. With regard to vaccines, there is a lack of information on their effectiveness and a lack of information on how they affect distribution and restrictions, which may lead to controversial views.
In addition to the frequency of uncertainty, there is also a lack of consensus about the best ways to communicate with the people for the best results. Studies have examined how patients deal with communication of uncertainty, how they understand it and how it influences decision-making.
In a different approach, researchers from University College London and the University of Warwick studied the negative effects of not communicating with uncertainty. In the context of the COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers have addressed these questions in their study: Are there times when it is difficult to communicate uncertainty, it is better than not hidden? Does communicating uncertainty go backwards if people find out they are there and open to conflicting information? This review of how people deal with controversial vaccine communications was recently posted on the preprint server medRxiv *.
Trust and confidence in the government official who made the news about the vaccine before he received controversial information (i.e. after the news about the vaccine) and after he received controversial information with confirmation.
“Our findings show that being positive about uncertainty can maintain public confidence in the long term. In a crisis like Covid-19, with so much we don’t know, we are confronted with ever-changing and sometimes counterproductive information. communicating uncertainty can prevent interventions such as the vaccination program from going back further down the line, “he said. Dr Eleonore Batteux, Honorary Researcher, Center for the Study of Uncertainty in Decision – UCL, and co-author of this study.
The researchers conducted an online study with UK participants on hypothetical communication related to COVID-19 vaccines. The researchers conducted this study in November 2020, before any COVID-19 vaccine was known and its effectiveness was widely communicated.
Vaccine intent and efficacy of vaccines as perceived before receiving controversial information (i.e. after the vaccine news) and after receiving controversial information with a call confirmation.
Participants (n = 328) first read a vaccine message, who communicated with them certainty no uncertainty; followed by other information that was against the first message. Participants were randomly assigned sure no uncertain communication. The hypotheses in this study were recorded on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/c73px/).
The researchers found that those that were open sure advertisements reported that the loss of trust and intention of vaccination was greater than those that were open uncertain sanasan.
In this study, the researchers considered their findings in detail about the vaccines, the government, the predictors of vaccine intent and the emotions involved. Participants who received the sure the news saw him less effective after reading controversial information.
Interestingly, the sure the news led to a further decline in trust and confidence in government officials after being exposed to conflicting information.
It was noted that perceived vaccine efficacy mediated the association between communication uncertainty and vaccine intent. With this in mind, the researchers explored whether this was also the case in this study. They found that both trust in a government official and perceived effectiveness mediated the link between naming confirmation and vaccine intent.
“While the pattern of decisions about emotions is similar, the differences between those receiving the definitive and uncertain naming were less clear, perhaps due to the hypothetical nature of the hypothesis. research. “
The researchers found that their findings support calls for greater clarity and recognition of uncertainty in COVID-19-related communications. They highlight the benefits of communicating uncertainty, which we hope will encourage further research into doing so effectively.
In the title of a section, “What if uncertainty is not communicated?” the researchers studied novel angle for the first time. While studies show benefits without communicating insecurity, it is found that communicating with certainty for no reason damages trust.
Participants were exposed to one instance of conflicting information. In contrast, there are likely to be many conditions throughout a pandemic, the researchers warned, while discussing the limitations in this study.
In this study, the researchers examined how inadvertent communication affects vaccine confidence and intention over time, the effectiveness of vaccine perception and influential reactions after receiving the news to, after receiving the news. obtain controversial information.
This study established that unsolicited communication can go back in time in the long run, but insecure communication can protect people from the negative impact of controversial information, the researchers write.
* Important message
medRxiv publish preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be seen as final, guiding health-related clinical practice / behavior, or be treated as information established.