This piece documents how policymakers have stigmatized mRNA vaccination, in contrast to other forms of vaccine technology, following the COVID-19 pandemic. It further argues that, although it is presently unclear whether elites’ efforts to stigmatize mRNA vaccines have spilled over to shape US public opinion, there is growing reason to believe that it might. Ultimately, mRNA vaccine stigmatization could erode public confidence in mRNA vaccination and limit access to life-saving vaccines. This piece concludes by outlining a research agenda for researchers at the intersection of politics and the life sciences who hope to better understand the causes and consequences of mRNA vaccine stigmatization.

The aim is to examine how vaccine misinformation shapes perceived social norms and assess their mediating role in vaccination intentions during pandemics, an underexplored mechanism in misinformation’s influence on vaccine decisions. In a pre-registered online experiment, UK residents (n = 332) were randomly assigned to either a misinformation or control condition in a hypothetical pandemic scenario. I measured changes in vaccination intentions, first-order normative beliefs (perceptions of others’ vaccination intentions) and second-order normative beliefs (perceptions of others’ beliefs about vaccine safety) before and after exposure. Causal mediation analysis using inverse odds ratio weighting assessed the indirect effects of misinformation through changes in normative beliefs. The pre–post comparison revealed that vaccine intentions declined 2.5% more in the misinformation condition compared to the control group (p = 0.024, d = 0.24). In the misinformation group, average vaccine intentions dropped from 62.4% to 59.3%, while the control group showed minimal change from 60.8% to 60.2%. Changes in first-order normative beliefs mediated 39.52% of misinformation’s total effect on vaccination intentions. The findings reveal that vaccine misinformation operates through dual pathways: directly affecting individual beliefs while simultaneously distorting perceptions of social consensus about vaccination.

Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective and successful public health interventions to prevent infectious diseases. Governments worldwide have tried to optimize vaccination coverage, including using vaccine mandates. This review of recent literature and policy aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Malaysia’s childhood vaccination landscape. The document analysis was used to identify and examine information from government policy documents, official government media statements, mainstream news content, and research papers. Content analysis was then employed to analyze the gathered information. Despite the successes of Malaysia’s National Immunization Programme, a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases has raised concerns about vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Several contributing factors have been identified, including a preference for alternative medicines, doubts about halal status, fear of vaccine injury, concerns about the vaccines’ contents, conspiracy theories, as well as convenience and access barriers. While various initiatives have been implemented, Malaysia may consider using vaccine mandates, as several countries have recently done, as a potential policy intervention to address these challenges. This review benefits policymakers, epidemiologists, as well as researchers involved in regional or global policy planning and advocacy efforts. It also offers comprehensive insights into designing effective interventions and making informed policy decisions regarding childhood vaccination programmes.

Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.

While vaccine hesitancy has become a salient issue, few studies have examined the influence of international collaboration and vaccine developments on people's attitudes towards vaccines. The international collaboration especially with China has been an integral part of the field of influenza. In recent years, attitudes towards vaccines and China are both heavily politicized in the USA with a deepening partisan divide. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to be vaccine hesitant, and they are also more likely to view China negatively. At the same time, the USA has economic, security, and medical collaboration with Japan and most Americans display a very positive view of the country. Thus, does a more international collaboration or more country-specific vaccine development have an influence on US vaccine hesitancy? This study conducts a survey-embedded question-wording experiment to assess the roles of US–China and US–Japan collaboration and partisanship in people's willingness to get the flu vaccine. Despite the previously successful and effective US–China collaboration, this study finds that respondents especially Republicans are much less likely to receive a US–China flu vaccine than a US–Japan or USA alone. Interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans are as willing to receive a US–Japan vaccine as USA alone. These results point to critical roles of partisanship and international relations.

Effective communication is essential for delivering public health messages and enabling behaviour change. Little is known about possible backfiring, or spillover effects, of COVID-19 vaccine messaging. In a study with n = 1,848 United Kingdom (UK) adults, we assess whether communication strategies that target vaccine hesitancy have any unintended, positive or negative, spillover effects on people's intention to engage in protective, compliance and prosocial behaviours. In June–July 2021, we conducted an online experiment to assess the potential spillover effects of three messages, emphasising (a) the medical benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, (b) the non-medical collective benefits of vaccination or (c) the non-medical individual benefits of holding a vaccination certificate. Exposure to different messages did not significantly affect people's intention to engage in protective, compliance, or prosocial behaviours. Instead, vaccination status (being vaccinated vs not) was positively associated with intentions to engage in protective, compliance and prosocial behaviours. Our results suggest that communication strategies that aim to increase vaccination uptake do not have any unintended effects on other health behaviours and vaccination campaigns can be tailored to specific populations to increase uptake and compliance.

There has been a lack of information on vaccine acceptance for Finnish adults. We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected through the Finnish Medicines Agency Medicine Barometer 2021 survey (response rate: 20.6%). We described and explained vaccine acceptance by investigating the associations between socio-demographic factors and statements using logistic regression and conducted a factor analysis. The majority of respondents (n = 2081) considered vaccines to be safe (93%), effective (97%), and important (95%). However, 20% and 14% felt they did not have enough information about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), respectively. Respondents aged 18–39 were 2.8 times more likely to disagree that they had enough information about VPDs compared to respondents aged 60–79 (p < 0.001), while respondents with poorer self-perceived health were 1.8 times more likely to declare not having enough information about vaccines (p < 0.001). We generated three-factor dimensions from the eight statements. They were related to ‘Confidence and attitudes towards vaccines’, ‘Access to information on vaccines and VPDs’, and ‘Debate on vaccine issues’, which may reflect the underlying thinking patterns. Access to and understanding of information about vaccines and VPDs need to be improved for Finnish adults to increase vaccine acceptance and uptake, thus preventing the spread of VPDs.

The Malaysian Government has initiated the National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme, known as PICK, to be a national strategy for addressing the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic across the country. Although the government intensified public awareness to increase program registration, the total number that registered in the state of Sabah, located in East Malaysia, was relatively low during August 2021, accounting for only 42.9% as compared to that of Peninsular Malaysia. Therefore, this paper examines the public perception toward the PICK program in Sabah based on 4 main components: safety, communication, psychology, and milieu. This study is based on the empirical findings drawn from 1024 respondents across Sabah using online Google Form surveys. This study adopts 5 methodologies for data analysis by using K-means clustering, mean score, Mann–Whitney U test, spatial analysis, and frequency analysis. It has been revealed that the percentage of respondents (categorized as Cluster 1) who have a negative perception toward the vaccination program is higher (55.9%) than those who have a positive perception (44.1%). This study further discovered that Cluster 1 has shown high skepticism regarding the vaccination program, which can be explained through the communication component (M = 3.33, SD = 0.588), especially Co2, Co3, Co1, and Co4. Following the communication factor, a chain of negative perceptions also affects other components such as safety, psychology, and milieu among Cluster 1, all of which contribute to poor participation in the PICK program. The study outcomes are extremely useful for informing local authorities to establish policies related to public interests, primarily in the areas of public health. Understanding the community’s perspectives and their obstacles in participating in such programs may assist local authorities in developing or implementing public policies and campaigns that ensure such related public programs can be conducted more effectively in the future.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in Turkey, which can aid future health policies and strategies. A comprehensive search was conducted on various databases using keywords related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey. Quality assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies. Data extraction was conducted. The random effect model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was used in pooled prevalence data analysis (95% confidence interval [CI]). A total of 1,072 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and excluding articles, 61 articles remained for bias assessment. Among these, 19 articles with low risk of bias were included in the review and meta-analysis. Total population included in the analysis was 15,164, vaccine hesitancy was 30.5% (95% Cl: 24.3–36.8%). Prevalence of the vaccine hesitancy was found to be 39.8% (95% Cl: 31.4–48.2%) in studies conducted before the initiation of vaccination, while in studies conducted after the commencement of vaccination, hesitancy was 20.4% (95% Cl: 12.9–28%). We suggest conducting high-quality studies in different populations to understand the level of vaccine hesitancy, as many of the previous studies have mainly focused on healthcare workers and students, and rest were community-based studies, which have generally shown high bias. Also, we suggest that early vaccination can reduce vaccine hesitancy.

Some vaccine-hesitant people lack epistemic trust in the COVID-19 vaccine recommendation that because vaccines have been shown to be medically safe and effective, one ought to get vaccinated. Citing what I call exception information, they claim that whatever the general safety and efficacy of vaccines, the vaccines may not be safe and effective for them. Examples include parents citing information about their children's health, pregnant women's concerns about the potential adverse effects of treatment on pregnant women, young people citing their relative invulnerability to extreme COVID-19 symptoms, or members of vulnerable racial groups citing epistemic injustice, such as a lack of representation in COVID-19 vaccine trials. This paper examines the extent to which a lack of epistemic trust in vaccine recommendations, based on such exemption information, is rational.