- Core facts: a refutation should always emphasize the facts, not the myth. The introduction should only present key facts easy to memorize.
- Explicit warnings: before any mention of a myth, text, visual or oral cues should clearly warn that the upcoming information is false.
- Alternative explanation: any knowledge gaps left by addressing misconceptions linked to vaccination should be filled by providing an alternative casual explanation for why the myth is false.
- Graphics: core facts should be displayed graphically when possible.
- Careful language: moderate language and formulations should always be used when saying that there is no risk as strong negations of risk may backfire and lead to a higher risk perception.
Sunday, 6 August 2017
Addressing misconceptions on measles vaccination | ecdc
Since the introduction of vaccination, myths and misconceptions regarding vaccination have been present. Scientific research in psychology has shown that addressing these misconceptions is difficult: mere reading about a myth, even about a myth’s refutation, can strengthen the myth, rather than weaken its influence. Likewise, an explicit and strong negation of a risk can paradoxically increase rather than decrease the perception of risk in readers. The steps outlined below, proposed in the scientific literature, aim to help public health professionals address vaccination misconceptions in the best possible way.
