Qualitative inquiry into reasons why vaccination messages fail-Critical Response of Masaryk and Hatokova (2017)
In the journal article, “Qualitative inquiry into reasons why vaccination messages fail”, Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) argue that balanced, more clear and authentic sources of vaccination messages could change people's attitudes towards health and well-being is imperative for any efforts to engage with their vaccine refusal. While this article contained strong evidence and the authors found the main reason of people’s psychology because using appropriate methodology, one issue was that focus on a group of people was inappropriate.
Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) believe that people’s attitudes towards health and well-being could be changed if pro-vaccine messages are more clear, balanced and authenticated from authority. They used a qualitative method (thematic analysis) to find out the main reason why people are not convinced to vaccinate after promoting the pro-vaccination messages. Firstly, authors divided people in two groups (female student and mother), then they recorded the whole interview and asked qualitative questions with four interventions from Nyhan et al. (2014) study. Secondly, they found the main reasons (i.e. autism correction, disease narrative, disease risks, and disease images) of people’s reactions to interventions because of thematic analysis. Lastly, they acknowledge that society needs new approaches to deliver effective and narrative pro-vaccination messages. For example, pro-vaccination messages should not try to hide any associated risks. In conclusion, Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) argue that only moderate formulations-based messages could be effective to build a trusting relationship between authority and parents.
Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) found the main reason of people’s reaction to interventions because of their methodology of the study was appropriate. They used thematic analysis on four interventions (autism correction, disease risks, disease narrative, and disease images) to promote vaccination. Because thematic analysis collects information that seeks to describe a topic more than measure it. For instance, in this study authors found that messages don’t provide enough information to the participants. Think of impressions, opinions, and views that seek to delve deep into the topic at hand to gain information about people’s thinking, and attitudes. The authors are recognized expert in the psychology field and the other thing is they used reliable scholarly sources of information which authenticate their study. Overall, the main reason of people’s reactions to the intervention made sense to me by analyzing the study. I think the authors found exact reasons by studying four interventions because they go further, illustrate quotations to summarize the themes and studied people’s reactions. In conclusion, the authors consider people’s counter-intuitive nature seems to bring in multiple cognitive mechanisms that lead to anti-vaccination beliefs.
One problem with this journal article is that they only focused on female participants. In their qualitative study they interviewed female students (mean age 21.54) who don’t have children, another group were mothers (mean age 33.54) who have children with 5 years old and analyzed their interviews through thematic analysis. Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) consider that only mother makes most of the decisions related to the child’s healthcare. I think in this study if authors consider the father’s decisions the results could be different. Another thing is they mentioned in their study that they are trying to explore the specific role of fathers in making vaccination-related decisions, but they didn’t mention the study, methods and sample sizes, etc. Presumably, if this view was widely supported in this case, they could discover different reactions towards pro-vaccination messages.
The implications of Masaryk and Hatokova's (2017) study are many; by analyzing the journal article I think society is in need of new approaches to delivering effective and narrative pro-vaccination messages and authorities should take care of it. Moreover, authorities should consider again to create vaccination messages as more balanced and not focusing on repeating the negative effects of vaccine-preventable diseases. Authorities should mention side effects, as well as benefits of vaccination in promotions and messages, should be clear, more specific and strive to empower the target group.
In the end, the authors’ argument partially convinced me that authorities should promote balanced, clear and authentic sources of vaccination messages that could change people’s attitudes toward health and well-being because previous pro-vaccination messages were ineffective to change people’s attitude. While Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) referred to strong evidence, they found the main reason of people’s reactions to interventions by analyzing appropriate methodology but on the other hand, they consider only a particular group of people that seems to be limited. Parental vaccination decisions are complex and multi-dimensional. To explore the effectiveness of vaccination messages, authorities should take these recommended initiatives to increase the vaccination rate.
References
Masaryk, R., & Hatokova, M. (2017). Qualitative inquiry into why vaccination messages fail. Journal of Health Psychology, 22 (14), 1880-1888.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. American Academy of Pediatrics, 133(4), 1-8. http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) believe that people’s attitudes towards health and well-being could be changed if pro-vaccine messages are more clear, balanced and authenticated from authority. They used a qualitative method (thematic analysis) to find out the main reason why people are not convinced to vaccinate after promoting the pro-vaccination messages. Firstly, authors divided people in two groups (female student and mother), then they recorded the whole interview and asked qualitative questions with four interventions from Nyhan et al. (2014) study. Secondly, they found the main reasons (i.e. autism correction, disease narrative, disease risks, and disease images) of people’s reactions to interventions because of thematic analysis. Lastly, they acknowledge that society needs new approaches to deliver effective and narrative pro-vaccination messages. For example, pro-vaccination messages should not try to hide any associated risks. In conclusion, Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) argue that only moderate formulations-based messages could be effective to build a trusting relationship between authority and parents.
Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) found the main reason of people’s reaction to interventions because of their methodology of the study was appropriate. They used thematic analysis on four interventions (autism correction, disease risks, disease narrative, and disease images) to promote vaccination. Because thematic analysis collects information that seeks to describe a topic more than measure it. For instance, in this study authors found that messages don’t provide enough information to the participants. Think of impressions, opinions, and views that seek to delve deep into the topic at hand to gain information about people’s thinking, and attitudes. The authors are recognized expert in the psychology field and the other thing is they used reliable scholarly sources of information which authenticate their study. Overall, the main reason of people’s reactions to the intervention made sense to me by analyzing the study. I think the authors found exact reasons by studying four interventions because they go further, illustrate quotations to summarize the themes and studied people’s reactions. In conclusion, the authors consider people’s counter-intuitive nature seems to bring in multiple cognitive mechanisms that lead to anti-vaccination beliefs.
One problem with this journal article is that they only focused on female participants. In their qualitative study they interviewed female students (mean age 21.54) who don’t have children, another group were mothers (mean age 33.54) who have children with 5 years old and analyzed their interviews through thematic analysis. Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) consider that only mother makes most of the decisions related to the child’s healthcare. I think in this study if authors consider the father’s decisions the results could be different. Another thing is they mentioned in their study that they are trying to explore the specific role of fathers in making vaccination-related decisions, but they didn’t mention the study, methods and sample sizes, etc. Presumably, if this view was widely supported in this case, they could discover different reactions towards pro-vaccination messages.
The implications of Masaryk and Hatokova's (2017) study are many; by analyzing the journal article I think society is in need of new approaches to delivering effective and narrative pro-vaccination messages and authorities should take care of it. Moreover, authorities should consider again to create vaccination messages as more balanced and not focusing on repeating the negative effects of vaccine-preventable diseases. Authorities should mention side effects, as well as benefits of vaccination in promotions and messages, should be clear, more specific and strive to empower the target group.
In the end, the authors’ argument partially convinced me that authorities should promote balanced, clear and authentic sources of vaccination messages that could change people’s attitudes toward health and well-being because previous pro-vaccination messages were ineffective to change people’s attitude. While Masaryk and Hatokova (2017) referred to strong evidence, they found the main reason of people’s reactions to interventions by analyzing appropriate methodology but on the other hand, they consider only a particular group of people that seems to be limited. Parental vaccination decisions are complex and multi-dimensional. To explore the effectiveness of vaccination messages, authorities should take these recommended initiatives to increase the vaccination rate.
References
Masaryk, R., & Hatokova, M. (2017). Qualitative inquiry into why vaccination messages fail. Journal of Health Psychology, 22 (14), 1880-1888.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. American Academy of Pediatrics, 133(4), 1-8. http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
Comments
Post a Comment