Strategies to Build Trust and COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Engagement among Minority Groups in Scotland

Abstract

As countries continue to deal with the global COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, policymakers recognize that science, technology, and innovation (STI) practices offer a means of addressing many of the health problems that arise from the ongoing pandemic. Such recognition has given rise to many STI policy initiatives across various areas of science and policy, leading to a better understanding of coronavirus and the development of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. However, the practical implementation of vaccine and treatment strategies within local communities extends well beyond the laboratory. This study explored how misinformation and trust amplify or attenuate coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccine perceptions of those from ethnic minority groups deemed more susceptible to the impacts of the virus. Primary data in this study were collected in Scotland through semistructured interviews with 26 expert and nonexpert members from Scotland’s minority ethnic communities. The study findings show that risk perception is fluid and dependent on the information and evidential environment in which people find themselves. Misinformation, fake news, conspiracies, and trust or distrust (from prior experiences and historic practices) influence the perception of coronavirus and how risk messages are received, including the acceptance of coronavirus vaccines. This article reflects on Scotland’s approach to building trust and COVID-19 vaccine confidence and engagement based on the findings of this study, identifying areas of strength and areas for further improvement or research. The authors believe, as shown by our research, that vaccine engagement will be more impactful if developed by and with the public, and reflects public values, concerns, and priorities.

Keywords

COVID-19 / Vaccine engagement / Trust building / Minority group engagement / Science innovation / Scotland

References

[1] Abideen AZ, Mohamad FB, Hassan MR. Mitigation strategies to fight the COVID-19 pandemic—Present, future and beyond. Journal of Health Research, 2020, 34(6): 547-562

[2] Adekola J. Power and risk in policymaking: Understanding public health debates, 2019, Cham: Springer

[3] Audit Scotland. 2021. COVID-19 vaccination programme. Edinburgh, UK: Audit Scotland. https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/publications/covid-19-vaccination-programme. Accessed 29 Aug 2021.

[4] Aven T, Bouder F. The COVID-19 pandemic: How can risk science help?. Journal of Risk Research, 2020, 23(7–8): 849-854

[5] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3(2): 77-101

[6] Chen J, Lu H. New challenges to fighting COVID-19: Virus variants, potential vaccines, and development of antivirals. Bioscience trends, 2021, 15(2): 126-128

[7] COVID Tracking Project. 2020. Federal COVID data 101: What we know about race and ethnicity data. https://covidtracking.com/analysis-updates/federal-covid-data-101-race-ethnicity-data. Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

[8] Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2016, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

[9] Cushion, S., M. Kyriakidou, M. Morani, and N. Soo. 2020. Coronavirus: Fake news less of a problem than confusing government messages—New study. The Conversation, 12 June 2020. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-fake-news-less-of-a-problem-than-confusing-government-messages-new-study-140383. Accessed 16 Aug 2021.

[10] De Figueiredo A, Simas C, Karafillakis E, Paterson P, Larson HJ. Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and investigating barriers to vaccine uptake: A large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study. The Lancet, 2020, 396(10255): 898-908

[11] Dowie J. Communication for better decisions: Not about “risk”. Health, Risk & Society, 1999, 1(1): 41-53

[12] Dror AA, Eisenbach N, Taiber S, Morozov NG, Mizrachi M, Zigron A, Srouji S, Sela E. Vaccine hesitancy: The next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2020, 35(8): 775-779

[13] Ebrahim SH, Ahmed QA, Gozzer E, Schlagenhauf P, Memish ZA. Covid-19 and community mitigation strategies in a pandemic. BMJ, 2020

[14] Fischbacher-Smith D. Waring A. Suppressing the “seeker of truth” in the Covid-19 pandemic: Medical populism, radical uncertainty, and the assault on expertise. The new authoritarianism. Volume 3. A risk analysis of the corporate/radical-right axis, 2021, Hanover: Ibidem Press 301-346.

[15] Fischbacher-Smith, D. 2021b. COVID-19, the emergence of medical populism, and the erosion of expertise. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 31 August–3 September 2021b, Lancaster, UK.

[16] Freudenberg WR, Pastor SK. LULUs: Stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 1992, 48(4): 39-61

[17] Frewer LJ. Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P. Trust, transparency, and social context: Implications for social amplification of risk. The social amplification of risk, 2003, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 123-137

[18] Gilles I, Bangerter A, Clémence A, Green EG, Krings F, Staerklé C, Wagner-Egger P. Trust in medical organisations predicts pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccination behavior and perceived efficacy of protection measures in the Swiss public. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2011, 26(3): 203-210

[19] Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 2006, 18(1): 59-82

[20] Haider N, Yavlinsky A, Simons D, Osman AY, Ntoumi F, Zumla A, Kock R. Passengers’ destinations from China: Low risk of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) transmission into Africa and South America. Epidemiology & Infection, 2020

[21] Ioannidis, J.P. 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50(4): Article e13223.

[22] Jegede, A.S. 2007. What led to the Nigerian boycott of the polio vaccination campaign? PLoS Medicine 4(3): Article e73.

[23] Kasperson RE. Krimsky S, Golding D. The social amplification of risk: Progress in developing an integrative framework in social theories of risk. Social theories of risk, 1992, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger 53-178.

[24] Kim JH, Hotez P, Batista C, Ergonul O, Figueroa JP, Gilbert S, Gursel M Operation warp speed: Implications for global vaccine security. The Lancet Global Health, 2021, 9(7): e1017-e1021

[25] Knight FH. Risk, uncertainty and profit, 2006, 1957 imprint Mineola, NY: Dover Publications

[26] Krause NM, Freiling I, Beets B, Brossard D. Fact-checking as risk communication: The multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 2020, 23(7–8): 1052-1059

[27] Lasco G, Curato N. Medical populism. Social Science & Medicine, 2019, 221: 1-8

[28] Lockyer B, Islam S, Rahman A, Dickerson J, Pickett K, Sheldon T, Wright J, McEachan R, Sheard L Bradford Institute for Health Research Covid‐19 Scientific Advisory Group Understanding COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in context: Findings from a qualitative study involving citizens in Bradford, UK. Health Expectations, 2021, 24(4): 1158-1167

[29] MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine, 2015, 33(34): 4161-4164

[30] Mesa, D.O., A.B. Hogan, O.J. Watson, G.D. Charles, K. Hauck, A.C. Ghani, and P. Winskill. 2022. Modelling the impact of vaccine hesitancy in prolonging the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Communications Medicine 2: Article 14.

[31] Murugesu JA. Stark inequality in covid-19 deaths. NewScientist, 2022

[32] Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, Agha M, Agha R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. International Journal of Surgery, 2020, 78: 185-193

[33] Ozili, P.K., and T. Arun. 2020. Spillover of COVID-19: Impact on the global economy. MPRA (Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper No. 99850. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99850/. Accessed 18 Nov 2022.

[34] Prati G, Pietrantoni L, Zani B. Compliance with recommendations for pandemic influenza H1N1 2009: The role of trust and personal beliefs. Health Education Research, 2011, 26(5): 761-769

[35] Public Health England. 2020. Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2021.

[36] Quinn SC, Parmer J, Freimuth VS, Hilyard KM, Musa D, Kim KH. Exploring communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: Results of a national survey. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 2013, 11(2): 96-106

[37] Reyes MZ. Social research: A deductive approach, 2004, Manila: Rex Book Store

[38] Roozenbeek, J., C.R. Schneider, S. Dryhurst, J. Kerr, A.L.J. Freeman, G. Recchia, A.M. van der Bles, and S. van der Linden. 2020. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science 7(10): Article 201199.

[39] Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, Spiegelhalter D, van der Linden S. COVID-19 risk perception: A longitudinal analysis of its predictors and associations with health-protective behaviours in the United Kingdom. Journal of Risk Research, 2021, 24(3–4): 294-313

[40] Scottish Government. 2020. Coronavirus (COVID-19): Scotland's strategic framework. https://www.gov.scot/publications/covid-19-scotlands-strategic-framework/pages/1/. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

[41] Scottish Government. 2022. Inclusive vaccinations: Phase one of the COVID-19 vaccination programme: Vaccine strategy division—Inclusion. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/progress-report/2022/02/vaccine-inclusion-phase-one-covid-19-vaccination-programme/documents/inclusive-vaccinations-phase-one-covid-19-vaccination-programme/inclusive-vaccinations-phase-one-covid-19-vaccination-programme/govscot%3Adocument/inclusive-vaccinations-phase-one-covid-19-vaccination-programme.pdf?forceDownload=true. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

[42] Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H. Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 2003, 23(4): 705-716

[43] Slovic P. Krimsky S, Golding D. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Social theories of risk, 1992, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger 117-152.

[44] Smith MJ, Marshall GS. Navigating parental vaccine hesitancy. Pediatric Annals, 2010, 39(8): 476-482

[45] Stilgoe, J. 2007. Nanodialogues: Experiments in public engagement with science. Demos. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2007-07/apo-nid15737.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2021.

[46] Streeton R, Cooke M, Campbell J. Researching the researchers: Using a snowballing technique. Nurse Researcher, 2004, 12(1): 35-47

[47] Tongco MDC. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 2007, 5: 147-158

[48] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974, 185(4157): 1124-1131

[49] Ullah I, Khan KS, Tahir MJ, Ahmed A, Harapan H. Myths and conspiracy theories on vaccines and COVID-19: Potential effect on global vaccine refusals. Vacunas, 2021, 22(2): 93-97

[50] Vergara RJD, Sarmiento PJD, Lagman JDN. Building public trust: A response to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy predicament. Journal of Public Health, 2021, 43(2): e291-e292

[51] Wise, J. 2001. Pfizer accused of testing new drug without ethical approval. BMJ 322(7280): Article 194.