Create trauma-informed content that builds trust and prevents retraumatisation—in real time Rembrandt Editor helps you write accessible, inclusive content that works for everyone, including the 16-25% of people with disabilities. Get real-time feedback to make your writing more considerate and empathetic.

To address vaccine hesitancy, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched the “We Can Do This” COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) in 2021 to promote vaccine confidence and increase vaccine uptake. The Campaign introduced a heavy-up media strategy to enhance its reach and engagement with its vaccine hesitant audience. This approach complemented the Campaign’s national media strategy while delivering an additional advertising dose to select priority designated market areas (DMAs) – that is, media markets – each month. We examine the relationship between the Campaign’s heavy-up strategy and initial COVID-19 vaccine uptake from August to December 2021. A stacked difference-in-differences (DID) analysis compared initial COVID-19 vaccine uptake between DMAs that received heavy-up (treatment) and DMAs that did not (control). The Campaign’s short-term heavy-up advertising strategy was associated with increased initial vaccine uptake in treatment DMAs. These results provide valuable insights for public health campaign strategy and evaluation, highlighting the effectiveness of increasing campaign dose in select markets to address vaccine hesitancy and improve public health outcomes.

Public education campaigns are promising methods for promoting vaccine uptake. In April 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched the We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign. This study is one of the first evaluations of this COVID-19 public education campaign. We tested associations between channel-specific campaign exposure (i.e. digital, TV, radio, print, and out-of-home advertising) and COVID-19 first-dose vaccinations among a nationally representative online sample of 3,278 adults. The study introduces novel ways to simultaneously evaluate short- and long-term cumulative media dose, filling an important gap in campaign evaluation literature. We observed a positive, statistically significant relationship between the short-term change in digital media dose and the likelihood of first-dose vaccination, and a positive, statistically significant relationship between long-term cumulative TV dose and the likelihood of first-dose vaccination. Results suggest that both digital and TV ads contributed to vaccination, such that digital media was associated with more immediate behavioral changes, whereas TV gradually shifted behaviors over time. As findings varied by media channel, this study suggests that public education campaigns should consider delivering campaign messages across multiple media channels to enhance campaign reach across audiences.

Public health campaigns addressing COVID-19 vaccination beliefs may be effective in changing COVID-19 vaccination behaviors, particularly among people who remain vaccine hesitant. The “We Can Do This” COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) was designed to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake. This study aims to evaluate whether Campaign dose was associated with changes in vaccination beliefs related to COVID-19 vaccine concerns and perceived risks, the importance of COVID-19 vaccines, the perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, normative beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination, and perceptions about general vaccine safety and effectiveness. The study linked data from four waves of a nationally representative longitudinal panel of U.S. adults (January 2021–March 2022) with Campaign paid digital media data (April 2021–May 2022). We used mixed-effects linear regressions to examine the association between Campaign paid digital impressions and changes in vaccination beliefs. The results provide evidence that Campaign digital impressions were significantly associated with changes in respondent beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccine concerns and perceived risks, perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, and perceptions about general vaccine safety and effectiveness. Findings suggest that public education campaigns may influence vaccine confidence and uptake by increasing positive vaccination beliefs and reducing vaccine concerns.

To investigate factors associated with intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,500 UK adults, recruited from an existing online research panel. Data were collected between 14th and 17th July 2020. We used linear regression analyses to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 “when a vaccine becomes available to you” and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, general vaccine attitudes and beliefs, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19, and attitudes and beliefs about a COVID-19 vaccination. 64% of participants reported being very likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 27% were unsure, and 9% reported being very unlikely to be vaccinated. Personal and clinical characteristics, previous influenza vaccination, general vaccination beliefs, and beliefs and attitudes about COVID-19 and a COVID-19 vaccination explained 76% of the variance in vaccination intention. Intention to be vaccinated was associated with more positive general COVID-19 vaccination beliefs and attitudes, weaker beliefs that the vaccination would cause side effects or be unsafe, greater perceived information sufficiency to make an informed decision about COVID-19 vaccination, greater perceived risk of COVID-19 to others (but not risk to oneself), older age, and having been vaccinated for influenza last winter (2019/20). Despite uncertainty around the details of a COVID-19 vaccination, most participants reported intending to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Actual uptake may be lower. Vaccination intention reflects general vaccine beliefs and attitudes. Campaigns and messaging about a COVID-19 vaccination could consider emphasizing the risk of COVID-19 to others and necessity for everyone to be vaccinated.

ResultsThe data reveal large variations in vaccine acceptance that ranges from 82 % in Denmark to 52 % in Hungary. Lack of vaccine acceptance is associated with lack of trust in authorities and scientists, conspiratorial thinking, and a lack of concern about COVID-19. ConclusionMost national levels of vaccine acceptance fall below estimates of the required threshold for herd immunity. The results emphasize the long-term importance of buildingtrust in preparations for health emergencies such as the current pandemic. For health communication, the results emphasize the importance of focusing on personal consequences of infections and debunking of myths to guide communication strategies

This study aims to (1) identify and categorize the strategies used in digital health interventions over the past 25 years; (2) explore the differences and changes in these strategies across time periods, countries, populations, delivery methods, and senders; and (3) serve as a valuable reference for future researchers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness of digital health interventions.

Our audience told us that one of the big reasons they didn’t feel comfortable bringing up the topic was that they were scared they’d be wrong. We realized we needed to take a step back and focus more on building knowledge of early signs first—the campaign had to help them walk before they could run.

Reasons to Stay is a suicide prevention project reaching people at difficult moments through anonymous letters written by volunteers. Each letter on this site was written by a real person and delivered to you at random when you visited this page. This space exists as a reminder that we are not alone, even when it feels that way. There is someone, somewhere who wrote you a letter because they care. If you’d like to, you can write your own letter to a stranger, offering warmth, hope and connection to someone when they need it most.

What actually works in practice Forget the academic models for a minute. Here’s what I’ve found genuinely works when creating content for vulnerable people:

Changing health information to match specific cultures can improve health outcomes. However, there are no government rules to make health information fit different cultures. We made a cultural tailoring score to test health materials. Graduate students from the target cultures tested it on COVID-19 vaccine ads. The score showed that cultural elements made the ads work better and helped people understand health messages. We suggest testing the score more to give researchers a simple tool for creating better health materials.

Creating a bot persona document. The part teams usually miss: Persona is the consistent personality users infer from your agent’s language choices — documented as constraints that guide every utterance. It prevents tone drift. It gives QA something testable. It makes “fun vs. professional” a decision, not a debate. And when persona isn’t defined, the agent becomes inconsistent in the places users notice most: greetings, errors, and handoffs.

To meet UK Net-Zero emissions targets, meat consumption must decrease. We present results from two studies evaluating interventions to reduce purchasing of meat-containing meals across university cafeterias in Oxford, UK. Study 1 tested whether two dynamic descriptive norm messages changed meal purchasing. Over eight weeks, four cafeterias displayed a norm message incorporating a socially ‘close’ referent group and three cafeterias displayed a message incorporating a socially ‘distant’ referent group. Two cafeterias were assigned a no-message control condition. A generalised linear mixed effect model suggested both messages decreased odds of cafeteria diners purchasing vegetarian meals, in comparison to control, 'Close' Message: Ratio of Odds Ratios (ORs)=0.79, 95% 95% CI [0.72, 0.86]; 'Remote' Message: Ratio of ORs=0.84, 95% CI [0.76,0.92]. Study 2 involved three pre-post experiments testing whether different interventions changed meal purchasing: re-positioning vegetarian products, increasing vegetarian availability, and introducing vegetarian defaults. Generalised linear models suggested each intervention was associated with significant increases in odds of diners purchasing vegetarian meals, Positioning: OR=1.33, 95% CI [1.24,1.44]; Availability: OR=1.60, 95% CI [1.45, 1.75]; Defaults: OR=1.77, 95% CI [1.61, 1.95]. These study results could be due to norm messaging being less effective at promoting vegetarian meals than interventions in availability, defaults, and positioning. But, given the study designs, they could instead be due to self-selection effects, or regression to the mean.

See what people are searching everywhere, from Google to ChatGPT

When you set out to convince, you make the conversation into a battle to be won and lost. You bring force and, as Newton’s laws of motion tell us, force creates counter-force. You’re creating resistance before you’ve even finished your argument. Winning means that in the end, we will just have one side (our own!). We want that unity of opinion, but we create opposition in the process.

What is the SHeLL EDITOR? Clear and simple health information is fundamental to high quality, safe, and person-centred healthcare. In practice though, writing health information in plain language is often difficult to get right. The SHeLL Editor uses fine-grained real-time feedback to help you learn and apply evidence-based health literacy strategies to written health information.

This checklist is an instrument to help public health departments and communicators improve trust and communication, especially in anticipation of serious public health issues, health emergencies, and when misleading rumors are abundant. To develop the checklist, the project team collected data on frequently observed rumors during public health emergencies (PHEs), interventions to address such rumors and improve trust, and the experiences of 100 key informant public health experts and practitioners working on the front lines. The checklist reflects current communication science and the voices and lived experiences of public health communicators who have worked in an environment of persistent rumors and declining trust in public health. The checklist provides public health communicators with tools, resources, and internal advocacy opportunities organized across 5 priority sections. These sections can be broadly described as 1) focusing on internal operations, 2) building connections with the community, 3) establishing opportunities with “secondary messengers,” 4) anticipating loss of trust in a PHE, and 5) creating meaningful and accessible messages.

When the word ‘vulnerable’ is used as an adjective to describe people, such as ‘vulnerable consumers’ this risks causing harm (or more harm) to those experiencing vulnerability. We recommend that ‘vulnerability’ is used as a noun to describe the situation people experience, suchas ‘consumer vulnerability’ rather than as an adjective to modify a noun (see Macdonald et al.,2021). The use of person-first terminology is consistent with adopting a strengths-based approachto customer vulnerability (Raciti et al. 2022, Russell-Bennett et. al. 2023). This addresses one ofthe harm factors listed above by taking away the stigma incumbent with assigned labels. Forpolicymakers or practitioners who aim to focus on addressing those who are at a higher risk ofharm, we suggest the following term is optimal: “consumers experiencing heightened vulnerability” (CEHV). The shorter term to use outside this framework is “consumers experiencing vulnerability”.

Invented claim about social security fraud due to misunderstood statistics

The Cultural Currents Institute's proprietary SPREAD framework is ideal for testing and refining messages and strategies at the conceptual phase, diagnosing and troubleshooting campaigns that may be struggling after launch, and accelerating efforts that have already found some success. The core concepts of the framework are introduced here. Simple to Remember and Share Plausible to its Intended Audience Relatable to Common Lived Experience Emotional and Evocative Actionable With Clear Steps Duplicable With Low Effort and High Fidelity

Our study suggests that concerns around personalization and AI persuasion are warranted, reinforcing previous results by showcasing how LLMs can outpersuade humans in online conversations through microtargeting. We emphasize that the effect of personalization is particularly remarkable given how little personal information was collected (gender, age, ethnicity, education level, employment status and political affiliation) and despite the extreme simplicity of the prompt instructing the LLM to incorporate such information (see Supplementary Section 2.5 for the complete prompts). Even stronger effects could probably be obtained by exploiting individual psychological attributes, such as personality traits and moral bases, or by developing stronger prompts through prompt engineering, fine-tuning or specific domain expertise.

The Trauma-Informed Storytelling Toolkit offers customizable Google Doc templates and resources to help nonprofits share stories that promote safety and resist harm.

Alongside a weak descriptive norm, the self-benefit message worked better than other- and collective-benefit messages. We argue that public health messaging should incorporate both theoretical approaches, closer to the notion of reasonableness (rather than pure rationality or normativity), which is context-sensitive and pragmatic.

When myth belief was high, question-answer format was more effective than a fact-only format immediately post-intervention, and after delay, more effective than fact-myth format.

Leading questions encourage a form of paradoxical thinking by leading individuals to perceive their own views as irrational, senseless, or exaggerated, examples of which can be found below (Hameiri et al., 2014, 2016; Swann et al., 1988). Leading questions are paradoxical in that they require participants to answer statements that are consistent with yet more extreme or senseless than their dearly held beliefs (Swann et al., 1988). The psychological mechanism underlying paradoxical thinking is based on three components: (1) Identity threat, in which individuals strive to distance themselves from the exaggerated and extreme attitudes presented to them by changing their own (Swann et al., 1988); (2) Surprise, in that the shock individuals experience when facing these extreme attitudes causes their deeply-rooted beliefs to be shaken, allowing new pieces of information to be absorbed (Hameiri et al., 2018); and (3) General disagreement, in that paradoxical messages are generally closer to the individual's beliefs (albeit being rather extreme) than completely contrary messages, thus provoking less resistance.

The SHeLL Health Literacy Editor is an online browser-based software that gives you objective, real-time feedback on the complexity of health information.

Q&A: What Happens When We Encounter the Same Information Repeatedly? In this Q&A from Choiceology, UCL and MIT neuroscience professor Tali Sharot discusses her research exploring a mistake we can make when we’re exposed to the same information repeatedly.

Audiopedia Academy GPT is an advanced AI-powered assistant built using OpenAI's GPT technology. Designed specifically to help Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), NGOs, government organizations, and individual stakeholders, this tool guides users through the EDUC method for creating meaningful and effective audio-based outreach campaigns. This interactive, empathetic, and resource-aware tool is now available at adp.ax/gpt.