‘This year’s vaccine is only 10% effective’: a study of public discourse on vaccine effectiveness in Hong Kong

References

• The government of the Hong Kong special administrative region. LCQ10: vaccination for children; 2019. Available from: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201904/17/P2019041700367.htm
   Google Scholar
• The center for health protection of the department of health. Statistics on vaccination programmes in the past 3 years; 2020. https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/features/102226.html
   Google Scholar
• Browne M. Epistemic divides and ontological confusions: the psychology of vaccine scepticism. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(10):2540–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2018.1480244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of health, the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Child health – immunisation; 2017. Available from: https://www.fhs.gov.hk/english/main_ser/child_health/child_health_recommend.html
   Google Scholar
• Lamberty P, Imhoff R. Powerful pharma and its marginalized alternatives? Effects of individual differences in conspiracy mentality on attitudes toward medical approaches. Soc Psychol. 2018;49(5):255–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smallman S. Whom do you trust? Doubt and conspiracy theories in the 2009 influenza pandemic. J Int Glob Stud. 2015;6(2):1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger JA. Vaccine hesitancy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(8):1763–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Report of the SAGE working group on vaccine hesitancy. World Health Organization; 2014. Available from: https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/1_Report_WORKING_GROUP_vaccine_hesitancy_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Freed GL, Clark SJ, Butchart AT, Singer DC, Davis MM. Parental vaccine safety concerns in 2009. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):654–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-1962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poltorak M, Leach M, Fairhead J, Cassell J. ‘MMR talk’ and vaccination choices: an ethnographic study in Brighton. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:709–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socs-cimed.2004.12.014 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leask J, Willaby HW, Kaufman J. The big picture in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(9):2600–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.29725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox S, Duggan M. Health online 2013. Pew Research Center; 2013. Available from: https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
   Google Scholar
• Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, Shrank WH. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;26:287–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1526-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Berben SA, Schoonhoven L. Definition of health 2.0 and medicine 2.0: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e18. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage-Bouchard E, LaValley S, Mollica M, Beaupin L. Cancer communication on social media: examining how cancer caregivers use Facebook for cancer-related communication. Cancer Nurs. 2016;40(4):332–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, He D, Sang Y. Facebook as a platform for health information and communication: a case study of a diabetes group. J Med Syst. 2013;37(3):9942. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-013-9942-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchens B, Harle CA, Li S. Quality of health-related online search results. Decis Support Syst. 2014;57:454–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granello DH, Wheaton JE. Online data collection: strategies for research. J Couns Dev. 2011;84(4):387–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00325.x
   Google Scholar
• Rich M. Student research in a web 2 world: learning to use new technology to gather primary data. Electron J Bus Res Method. 2011;9(1):78–86.
   Google Scholar
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaqub O, Castle-Clarke S, Sevdalis N, Chataway J. Attitudes to vaccination: a critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;112:1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burla L, Knierim B, Barth KL, Duetz M, Abel T. From the text to coding: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nurs Res. 2008;57:113–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNR.0000313482.33917.7d
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erfani S, Abedin B, Daneshgar F. A qualitative evaluation of communication in ovarian cancer Facebook communities. Int Conf Infor Soc, i-Soc. 2013;2013:270–2.
   Google Scholar
• Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarangi S. The language of likelihood in genetic-counseling discourse. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2002;21(1):7–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X02021001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn O, Klinke A. Risk governance and resilience: new approaches to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. In: Fra PU, editor. Risk governance: the articulation of hazard, politics and ecology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 19–41.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases; 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/forpatients/illness/hivaids/ucm126372.htm
   Google Scholar
• Adelswärd V, Sachs L. The meaning of 6.8: numeracy and normality in health information talks. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(8):1179–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00366-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olin Lauritzen S, Sachs L. Normality, risk and the future: implicit communication of threat in health surveillance. Sociol Health Illn. 2001;23(4):497–516. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher CL, Roccotagliata T, Rising CJ, Kissane DW, Glogowski EA, Bylund CL. “I don’t want to be an ostrich”: managing mothers’ uncertainty during BRCA1/2 genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(3):455–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9998-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klitzman RL. Misunderstandings concerning genetics among patients confronting genetic disease. J Genet Couns. 2010;19(5):430–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9307-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correll J, Spencer SJ, Zanna MP. An affirmed self and an open mind: self-affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2004;40(3):350–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan C, Niculae V, Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil C, Lee L. Winning arguments: interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web. International world wide web conferences steering committee; 2016. p. 613–624.
   Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, editors. Communication and persuasion. New York (NY): Springer; 1986. p. 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Xue F, Zhou L. Social information in Facebook news feed ads: effects of personal relevance and brand familiarity. J Promot Manage. 2019;25(4):570–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1500410
   Google Scholar
• Wagner-Egger P, Bangerter A, Gilles I, Green E, Rigaud D, Krings F, et al. Lay perceptions of collectives at the outbreak of the H1N1 epidemic: heroes, villains and victims. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(4):461–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510393605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K, Gignac GE. NASA faked the moon landing—therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(5):622–33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harambam J, Aupers S. Contesting epistemic authority: conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Underst Sci. 2015;24(4):466–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514559891
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas F, Aggleton P, Anderson J. ‘Experts’, ‘partners’ and ‘fools’: exploring agency in HIV treatment seeking among African migrants in London. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(5):736–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruder M, Haffke P, Neave N, Nouripanah N, Imhoff R. Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: conspiracy mentality questionnaire. Front Psychol. 2013;4:225. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maisa A, Milligan S, Quinn A, Boulter D, Johnston J, Treanor C, et al. Vaccination against pertussis and influenza in pregnancy: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators. Public Health. 2018;162:111–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.05.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prematunge C, Corace K, McCarthy A, Nair RC, Pugsley R, Garber G. Factors influencing pandemic influenza vaccination of healthcare workers—a systematic review. Vaccine. 2012;30(32):4733–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx J. Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: how good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? Argumentation. 2008;22(4):555–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selin C. Trust and the illusive force of scenarios. Futures. 2006;38(1):1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martini F. Hearsay viewed through the lens of trust, reputation and coherence. Synthese. 2017;194(10):4083–99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1128-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas S. Reported speech in English: form and function in a testimonial setting [PhD diss.]. University of Pennsylvania; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Broniatowski DA, Jamison AM, Qi S, AlKulaib L, Chen T, Benton A, et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1378–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekram S, Debiec KE, Pumper MA, Moreno MA. Content and commentary: HPV vaccine and YouTube. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019;32(2):153–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2018.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolley D, Douglas KM. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PloS One. 2014;9(2):e89177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan AHW, Lai AN. Report of the commission of inquiry into excess lead found in drinking water. Information Services Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; 2016. Available from: https://www.isd.gov.hk/drinkingwater/eng/pdf/COI20Drinking20Water_Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lam J, Ng K-C. Hong Kong lawmaker denies conflict in lead drinking water scare. South China Morning Post; 2015. Available from: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1838450/hong-kong-lawmaker-denies-conflict-lead-drinking-water-scare
   Google Scholar
• Li C. Direct speech and indirect speech: a functional study. In: F Coulmas, editor. Direct and indirect speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 1986. p. 29–45.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J, Raymond G. The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Soc Psychol Q. 2005;68(1):15–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin D. Narrative as self-portrait: sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Lang in Soc. 1996;25(2):167–203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clift R. Getting there first: non-narrative reported speech in interaction. In: E Holt, R Clift, editor. Reporting talk: reported speech in interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 120–49.
   Google Scholar
• Furnham A. Explaining health and illness: lay perceptions on current and future health, the causes of illness, and the nature of recovery. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39(5):715–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90026-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark SJ, Cowan AE, Filipp SL, Fisher AM, Stokley S. Parent perception of provider interactions influences HPV vaccination status of adolescent females. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2016;55(8):701–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922815610629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith PJ, Kennedy AM, Wooten K, Gust DA, Pickering LK. Association between health care providers’ influence on parents who have concerns about vaccine safety and vaccination coverage. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):e1287–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0923
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingham R, Woodcock A, Stenner K. The limitations of rational decision-making models as applied to young people’s sexual behaviour. In: Aggleton P, Davies P, Hart G, editors. AIDS: Rights, risk and reason. London: The Falmer Press; 1992. p. 163–73.
   Google Scholar
• Pimlott N. Two cheers for case reports. Can Fam Physician. 2014;60(11):966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alaszewski A, Coxon K. The everyday experience of living with risk and uncertainty. Health Risk Soc. 2008;10(5):413–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570802383952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior L. Belief, knowledge and expertise: the emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociol Health Illn. 2003;25:41–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar