The empathetic refutational interview to tackle vaccine misconceptions: Four randomized experiments.

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Communication Studies
• Psychology

Background:

• Antivaccination sentiments pose a significant public health challenge.
• Healthcare professionals (HCPs) require effective communication strategies to address vaccine hesitancy.
• Misinformation surrounding vaccines erodes public trust and impacts vaccination rates.

Purpose of the Study:

• To introduce and evaluate the early-stage effectiveness of the Empathetic Refutational Interview (ERI) intervention.
• To test a novel, multicomponent communication strategy for HCPs to counter antivaccination arguments.
• To assess the impact of tailored refutation and value affirmation on vaccine acceptance and patient-provider trust.

Main Methods:

• Four experiments were conducted with 2,545 participants, primarily vaccine-hesitant or negative.
• Participants were randomized to conditions testing four steps of the ERI: eliciting concerns, affirming values, tailored refutation, and providing facts.
• Intervention components were compared against active control conditions to measure effectiveness.

Main Results:

• The Empathetic Refutational Interview (ERI) showed small overall effects in increasing vaccine acceptance and reducing support for antivaccination arguments.
• Affirming participants' concerns significantly enhanced the effectiveness of refutations and factual information, yielding large effects.
• Tailored refutations were perceived as more compelling, fostering greater trust and openness toward healthcare professionals.

Conclusions:

• The Empathetic Refutational Interview (ERI) demonstrates potential as a communication tool for HCPs to address vaccine misinformation.
• This intervention can help maintain patient trust and rapport while refuting antivaccination misconceptions.
• Further research and testing are warranted to optimize and implement the ERI in clinical practice.