Responding to False or Misleading Media Communications about HPV Vaccines

"We believe that scientists have a moral duty to participate in public life by sharing their knowledge when false or misleading media coverage threatens public health."

In the context of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, this brief article examines why advocacy by scientists and healthcare providers is important to maintain public confidence in vaccination and to support programme resilience. It examines the fundamental differences between scientific and journalistic modes of communication, providing suggestions to help scientists craft effective messages in response to false or misleading HPV vaccine media stories.

As reported here, although there is strong international support for HPV vaccination, in some countries, media coverage has negatively influenced public perception and HPV vaccine uptake because of the lack of a rapid, organised scientific response. In part, this is due to the fact that journalism often features narratives - for instance, the story of a single adverse event - told from individual perspectives, and with high emotional content. This type of information is much more easily understood and remembered by the public than a data-heavy, peer-reviewed medical journal article that provides facts using scientific, dense language that is relatively inaccessible to those outside the field.

Of particular concern to the authors of this article is the phenomenon of "false balance", which is the equal presentation of scientifically unequal claims. As they explain, journalists tend to seek and communicate opposing perspectives on an issue, which can give readers the impression that two opposing positions have equal credibility or weight, even if the overwhelming consensus of opinion and data supports one side. That is, "By giving an equal voice (and thus equal legitimacy) to a non-expert such as an anti-vaccination campaigner or to an adverse case report, even well-intentioned journalists may cause significant erosion of trust in vaccination." Further complicating health communication in this context is the fact that "people tend to filter messages and arguments through their pre-existing beliefs and experiences, and are more preoccupied by risks than benefits..."

With these points in mind, the authors offer strategies that scientists or healthcare practitioners can use when speaking with the media. This is a particular skill, and resources have been developed to support it (see, for example, Related Summaries, below, for only one). Specifically, offered in the article are nine suggestions for publically responding to negative communications in the media; in brief:

• Check that you are the right spokesperson.
• Be prepared.
• Identify your audience.
• Identify the story's angle, and how your scientific expertise supports the story.
• Choose one or two key messages to repeat.
• Correct the content and unmask any fallacious arguments, being careful not to reiterate your opponent's arguments.
• Underline scientific consensus.
• Make the issue relevant to the individual.
• If your work or scientific evidence has been inaccurately reported in the media, write a concise letter to the editor suitable for publication.

Finally, the article includes some tips for conducting advocacy for vaccine science:

• Share positive vaccine stories on social media and with individual patients.
• Respond when someone posts dubious or anti-vaccine material.
• Monitor anti-vaccine and junk science publications in your own field of expertise.
• Communicate with like-minded scientists (e.g., through one of the many vaccine-supportive online communities for both professionals and the public).