As organizations around the country work to rebuild trust in vaccines, it has never been more apparent that conversations with families hesitant about vaccination are hard. Facts alone are often not enough to change a person’s decision to vaccinate. Key messages, like, “Vaccines are safe and effective,” are also unlikely to move most questioners toward vaccination. Instead, the conversation must be informed by two sets of considerations. First, the healthcare provider must have some understanding of the patient’s or parent’s worldview. Second, they must be prepared to respond with both detailed science and key takeaways. If they don’t have the detailed science at hand — given the array of topics that can be covered in these conversations — the provider should at least have a plan to help them get the information.
This June, in a Substack article from “Unbiased Science,” we saw a modern-day version of how to think about an individual’s “persona.” Admittedly, the authors describe this as “version 1.0,” likely to require iteration; however, even as a first pass, it can help providers recognize that patient and family concerns about vaccines mirror the way in which they have concerns about many things.
The “Unbiased Science” framework describes seven personas and provides some tips on communications strategies that may work with each type of individual. The personas include:
- The Naturalist
- The Worried Well
- The Skeptic
- The Conspiratorial
- The Confused
- The Unimpressed
- The Deferrer
It is impossible to provide a script for every question and conversation, though these general approaches can give providers a way to consider framing conversations to build trust and move people closer to vaccination.
For comments or questions, contact Unbiased Science online.
As organizations around the country work to rebuild trust in vaccines, it has never been more apparent that conversations with families hesitant about vaccination are hard. Facts alone are often not enough to change a person’s decision to vaccinate. Key messages, like, “Vaccines are safe and effective,” are also unlikely to move most questioners toward vaccination. Instead, the conversation must be informed by two sets of considerations. First, the healthcare provider must have some understanding of the patient’s or parent’s worldview. Second, they must be prepared to respond with both detailed science and key takeaways. If they don’t have the detailed science at hand — given the array of topics that can be covered in these conversations — the provider should at least have a plan to help them get the information.
This June, in a Substack article from “Unbiased Science,” we saw a modern-day version of how to think about an individual’s “persona.” Admittedly, the authors describe this as “version 1.0,” likely to require iteration; however, even as a first pass, it can help providers recognize that patient and family concerns about vaccines mirror the way in which they have concerns about many things.
The “Unbiased Science” framework describes seven personas and provides some tips on communications strategies that may work with each type of individual. The personas include:
- The Naturalist
- The Worried Well
- The Skeptic
- The Conspiratorial
- The Confused
- The Unimpressed
- The Deferrer
It is impossible to provide a script for every question and conversation, though these general approaches can give providers a way to consider framing conversations to build trust and move people closer to vaccination.
For comments or questions, contact Unbiased Science online.