Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
8.9
5.2
Journals
Vaccines
Special Issues
Restoring Ethical and Effective Communication about Vaccination
share announcement

Restoring Ethical and Effective Communication about Vaccination

A special issue of Vaccines (ISSN 2076-393X). This special issue belongs to the section "COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccination".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (1 June 2023) | Viewed by 6799

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Arri Eisen

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Biology, Institute for the Liberal Arts, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
Interests: epigenetics; bioethics; science education; bioethics education; cell biology
Dr. Odaro John Huckstep

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO 80840, USA
Interests: cardiovascular disease; cardiovascular risk; lifestyle health; education; infectious diseases; bioethics

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, 

Vaccination, a topic that had long been neglected in the broader public interest, found itself in the midst of a vigorous and polarized debate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much emphasis has been placed on particular positions and policies regarding vaccination. However, as both the masses and health professionals deal with fatigue, frustration, and challenges to their trust, it is time to reemphasize how we communicate, as much or more than what we communicate. Time is of the essence, as there is an urgent need for a range of new vaccinations—there are already warnings of a ‘tripledemic’ of COVID-19, flu, and respiratory syncytial virus this year—which may become part of 21st century life and beyond. Similarly, we must restore focus and momentum on vaccine development against globally important diseases such as malaria and viral hemorrhagic fevers. In this Special Issue, we invite data, insights, exploration, and reflection from across biomedical, social science, and humanities disciplines on this ethical imperative—to restore trust and, with it, health. To find out more about the manuscript types allowed and requirements for each, please visit the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types.

Prof. Dr. Arri Eisen
Dr. Odaro John Huckstep
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Vaccines is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • communication
  • ethical
  • vaccination
  • autonomy
  • public health

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

22 pages, 3185 KiB  
Article
How Scientists View Vaccine Hesitancy
by Eric W. Welch, Timothy P. Johnson, Tipeng Chen, Jinghuan Ma, Shaika Islam, Lesley Forst Michalegko, Mattia Caldarulo and Ashlee Frandell
Vaccines 2023, 11(7), 1208; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071208 - 6 Jul 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1987
Abstract
This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights [...] Read more.
This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists’ ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restoring Ethical and Effective Communication about Vaccination)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 328 KiB  
Communication
Public’s Experience with an Online Reservation System for Residual COVID-19 Vaccines and the Potential for Increasing the Actual Vaccination Rate
by Seonah Lee and Suhyun Kim
Vaccines 2023, 11(6), 1021; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11061021 - 24 May 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1274
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the public’s experience of online reservation of residual COVID-19 vaccines in an additional vaccination program. Online reservation was used to predict the vaccination rate. A sample of 620 participants completed the online survey between July and August 2021. [...] Read more.
This study aimed to investigate the public’s experience of online reservation of residual COVID-19 vaccines in an additional vaccination program. Online reservation was used to predict the vaccination rate. A sample of 620 participants completed the online survey between July and August 2021. About 38% of the participants made the online reservation. About 91% had a vaccination intention. Online reservations showed significant differences in their distribution according to age group, educational level, past flu shot experience, and COVID-19 vaccination intention. A negative experience was the most common response, which was mostly attributed to the difficulty in making an online reservation due to reservations being full. Positive experiences included updated information and notifications on the residual vaccines available, being able to choose a vaccination clinic, and the ease of making, changing, and canceling a reservation. About 72% reported the positive effect of residual vaccine usage on herd immunity. The results of this study suggest that when developing another online reservation program for vaccination, it is necessary to consider and address the negative experiences of the public with online reservations. The additional vaccinations may have resulted in an increased vaccination rate. Vaccination reservations can be used as an indicator to predict the actual vaccination rate and as a measure of a positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restoring Ethical and Effective Communication about Vaccination)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 586 KiB  
Article
Qualitative Conceptual Content Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Error Inquiries
by Elisha Hall, Solomon Odafe, Joseph Madden and Sarah Schillie
Vaccines 2023, 11(2), 254; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020254 - 24 Jan 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1676
Abstract
The launch of the COVID-19 vaccination program was the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history, with an unprecedented demand for vaccine and new vaccination providers, warranting significant education and communication efforts. NIP-INFO ([email protected]) is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) immunization [...] Read more.
The launch of the COVID-19 vaccination program was the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history, with an unprecedented demand for vaccine and new vaccination providers, warranting significant education and communication efforts. NIP-INFO ([email protected]) is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) immunization inquiry response service, and it receives inquiries for COVID-19 and routine non-COVID vaccines. A qualitative analysis of NIP-INFO’s content was performed to better characterize and understand some of the knowledge gaps and reasons that COVID-19 vaccine administration errors occur. A total of 734 COVID-19 vaccine administration error inquiries were received between January 2021 and April 2022. The most frequent inquiries related to storage (n = 191; 26.0%), incorrect dosage or product (n = 190; 25.9%), unauthorized age group (n = 108; 14.7%), and schedule (n = 105; 14.3%). Training and communication strategies are imperative to ensure proper vaccine administration and build and maintain vaccine confidence. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restoring Ethical and Effective Communication about Vaccination)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

9 pages, 257 KiB  
Commentary
How Did We Get Here: The Best Vaccines Ever Facing the Highest Public Hesitancy?
by Catterina Ferreccio
Vaccines 2023, 11(8), 1323; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11081323 - 4 Aug 2023
Viewed by 1199
Abstract
mRNA vaccine technology is the most interesting final product of decades of research. This new platform for public health is simple to transfer to low-income countries and can be used against diverse agents, including cancer. It is environmentally clean, relatively low-cost, and does [...] Read more.
mRNA vaccine technology is the most interesting final product of decades of research. This new platform for public health is simple to transfer to low-income countries and can be used against diverse agents, including cancer. It is environmentally clean, relatively low-cost, and does not use animals for its production. Most importantly, mRNA vaccines have been highly efficacious in avoiding serious disease and death from COVID-19. Yet, at the highest point of the pandemic, many voices, including some from prominent positions, opposed their use. Similarly, the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, which are highly effective, very safe, and probably confer long life protection against its HPV types, faced strong parents’ hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy has been the subject of extensive research, focusing primarily on factors associated with the public, the political environment, and messaging strategies. However, the issue of unfair worldwide access to the COVID-19 vaccines has recently sparked significant debate about the vaccine industry’s role. Recent data demonstrated that the system’s perceived unfairness with the masses is behind the growing populist anti-vaccine movements worldwide. The association between populism and antivaccine attitudes has been reported at country and individual levels. The anti-science attitudes behind vaccine hesitancy emerge when the scientist is not found credible due to the suspicion that they had monetary investments in pharmaceutical companies. Here, I argue that the obscurity of the vaccine market, but also its unfairness, are important factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. The purpose of this commentary is to stimulate a review of current market regulations and to improve its transparency and fairness, particularly in the context of public health emergencies. By doing so, a new pandemic would find us better prepared. The general population and much of the healthcare community often ignore the years of dedicated work and substantial public funding that enabled the discovery and design of vaccines. Conversely, pharmaceutical companies often over-emphasize their investments in research and development. A decade ago, Marcia Angell provided a detailed breakdown of pharmaceutical expenses, revealing that marketing and administration costs were 2.5 times higher than research and development expenses; recently, Olivier Wouters confirmed the high expenditures of the pharmaceutical industry in lobbying and political campaign contributions. In this commentary, I will present the cases of HPV and COVID-19 vaccines as examples of when vaccines, instead of being public health goods, became market goods, creating large inequities and health costs. This failure is a structural cause behind more ideological vaccine hesitancy, less studied so far. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restoring Ethical and Effective Communication about Vaccination)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop