Does Policy Uncertainty Boost Vaccine Hesitancy? Political Controversy, the FDA and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Fall 2020.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1215/03616878-11670184
Daniel Carpenter, Matthew E Dardet, Anushka Bhaskar, Leah Z Rand, William Feldman, Aaron S Kesselheim
{"title":"Does Policy Uncertainty Boost Vaccine Hesitancy? Political Controversy, the FDA and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Fall 2020.","authors":"Daniel Carpenter, Matthew E Dardet, Anushka Bhaskar, Leah Z Rand, William Feldman, Aaron S Kesselheim","doi":"10.1215/03616878-11670184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Vaccine hesitancy is associated with political and institutional distrust, but there is little research on how people's trust responds to political events. We revisit the fall of 2020 when evaluation of new COVID-19 vaccines collided with an impending national election. Drawing on a political Bayesian perspective, we assess abrupt changes in attention to political events and test hypotheses on subpopulation response: (1) partisan, (2) educational, and (3) ethnic and racial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analysis of daily changes in news reporting and social media use in 2020, combined with detailed analysis of two-large scale surveys fielded at the time, focusing on questions of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Vaccine hesitancy in the US spiked from late August to early October 2020. We identify several plausible triggers for this spike, all pertaining to the FDA and electoral politics. Heightened vaccine hesitancy occurred among Democrats, Asian and Black citizens, as well as college-educated respondents. Turbulence mainly affected those who were initially most trusting in government and vaccines. Asian-American vaccine confidence recovered; that of Black Americans did not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Electoral politics may destabilize citizen assumptions about vaccine authorization and boost uncertainty, thereby undermining public willingness to take approved vaccines.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11670184","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Vaccine hesitancy is associated with political and institutional distrust, but there is little research on how people's trust responds to political events. We revisit the fall of 2020 when evaluation of new COVID-19 vaccines collided with an impending national election. Drawing on a political Bayesian perspective, we assess abrupt changes in attention to political events and test hypotheses on subpopulation response: (1) partisan, (2) educational, and (3) ethnic and racial.

Methods: Analysis of daily changes in news reporting and social media use in 2020, combined with detailed analysis of two-large scale surveys fielded at the time, focusing on questions of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines.

Findings: Vaccine hesitancy in the US spiked from late August to early October 2020. We identify several plausible triggers for this spike, all pertaining to the FDA and electoral politics. Heightened vaccine hesitancy occurred among Democrats, Asian and Black citizens, as well as college-educated respondents. Turbulence mainly affected those who were initially most trusting in government and vaccines. Asian-American vaccine confidence recovered; that of Black Americans did not.

Conclusions: Electoral politics may destabilize citizen assumptions about vaccine authorization and boost uncertainty, thereby undermining public willingness to take approved vaccines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策不确定性是否会提高疫苗接种意愿?2020 年秋季的政治争议、FDA 和 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫不决。
背景:疫苗接种的犹豫不决与政治和制度上的不信任有关,但有关人们的信任如何对政治事件做出反应的研究却很少。我们重新审视了 2020 年秋季,当时对新 COVID-19 疫苗的评估与即将举行的全国大选相冲突。我们从政治贝叶斯的角度出发,评估了人们对政治事件关注度的突然变化,并检验了关于亚人群反应的假设:(方法:方法:分析 2020 年新闻报道和社交媒体使用的每日变化,结合对当时进行的两项大规模调查的详细分析,重点关注 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫不决的问题和对 COVID-19 疫苗安全性的担忧:研究结果:2020 年 8 月底至 10 月初,美国的疫苗接种犹豫骤增。我们为这一高峰找出了几个可信的触发因素,它们都与美国食品和药物管理局以及选举政治有关。民主党人、亚裔和黑人公民以及受过大学教育的受访者对疫苗犹豫不决的程度加剧。动荡主要影响了那些最初最信任政府和疫苗的人。亚裔美国人对疫苗的信心有所恢复,而黑人美国人的信心则没有恢复:结论:选举政治可能会动摇公民对疫苗授权的假设并增加不确定性,从而削弱公众接种获批疫苗的意愿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics, and Political Sophistication. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019. Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Why Some Nonelderly Adult Medicaid Enrollees Appear Ineligible Based on Their Annual Income.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1