Friday, January 29, 2021

Coronavirus in rural America (Part CXXI): New vaccine hesitancy data shows depth of rural America’s distrust

President Biden has boasted a goal to vaccinate 100 million Americans against covid-19 in his first one hundred days. This will be challenging, and rural writers I have read this week emphasize the challenge for their communities. One of my classmates wrote more expansively about this here, but key challenges that persist across experts are storage, distribution, and misinformation.

Misinformation, specifically, was of interest to me. I knew rural communities felt some of the harshest impacts of the pandemic, and as I have studied rurality, I know changing minds of folks in rural places can be easier said than done. The depth of this distrust, or ‘vaccine hesitancy’, and ways to fight it and protect rural communities drove me to dig further.

Recently, Kaiser Family Foundation has released data collected about trust in the covid-19 vaccine.
…four in ten (38%) rural residents say they will “wait and see” before getting the vaccine, and one in ten say they will only get the vaccine if they are required to do so for work or other activities.
Rural communities are less enthusiastic overall about the vaccine when compared to suburban and urban responses.
Three in ten (31%) people in rural areas say they will “definitely get” the vaccine, compared to four in ten people in urban areas (42%) and suburban areas (43%). An additional one-third of people in rural areas say they will “probably get it” while 35% say they will either “probably not get it” (15%) or “definitely not get it” (20%).
These communities are disparately impacted by coronavirus and the most distrustful of the vaccine among other American locales.

My next questions as I explored this issue were: what causes rural folks to be hesitant of the vaccine and how do public health officials best curb the spread of related distrust and misinformation?

Rural folks could be distrustful and not enticed to get the vaccine because of a deeper distrust in the virus itself. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s polling further found:
In addition, half of all rural residents say the seriousness of coronavirus is “generally exaggerated” compared to 27% of urban residents and 37% of suburban residents.
They similarly found:
…for rural residents, getting a COVID-19 vaccine is seen more as a personal choice (62%) than as part “of everyone’s responsibility to protect the health of others” (36%).
This personal choice mentality should be considered heavily in campaigns to fight vaccine hesitancy. In an article for the Kaiser Foundation, Drew Altman suggested modeling pro-vaccine arguments after similar arguments used in favor of the second amendment. In this scenario, the vaccine is shown as a way for rural residents to protect themselves and their families from outsiders.

To reach these communities and successfully encourage them to get the vaccination, the polling found the best messenger to be local doctors who are familiar to the rural residents. This is unsurprising. Though I am not originally from a rural community, I have learned that they are weary of outsiders.

As I heard in class recently (I’m paraphrasing), “…you’re from here once your grandparents are buried here.” It makes sense then, that these same tight-knit communities would distrust a vaccine being pressed on them from an outsider.

Public health officials must then incorporate rural healthcare providers in the information campaigns for the impacted communities. The messenger is key. As the Kaiser Foundation also found:
…a large majority of rural Americans (86%) say they trust their own doctor or health care provider to provide reliable information about a COVID-19 vaccine. Smaller shares say they trust the FDA (68%), the CDC (66%), their local public health department (64%), Dr. Fauci (59%), or state government officials (55%).
This data is revealing. It suggests that to best motivate rural Americans to get vaccinated, messaging needs to come from within the communities themselves. 

As a new administration takes the presidency and stresses vaccinations for a large chunk of Americans, it is important to keep in mind the ongoing struggle of rural communities against COVID-19, and the complicated barrier of vaccine hesitancy.

Other writing about COVID-19 vaccines and the challenges they face in rural communities on this blog can be found here and here.

5 comments:

mcrigali said...

Terrific snapshot of how and why communities are refusing to get the Covid vaccine. I was struck by the argument by health care professionals that getting a vaccine is like exercising your second amendment rights. It doesn't seem entirely helpful in the long-term. Isn't there a public policy interest in getting everyone on board with the idea that your health might impact someone else's because there could be another pandemic? This seems like it could be a problematic shortcut down the road.

Lisa R. Pruitt said...

Like other posts about vaccine hesitancy in rural America, this post makes me wonder what difference it would make to do a better job at "marketing." In particular, I note that my mom, who grew up impoverished in rural Arkansas, wrote in her teenage journal about the day her nephew, her older sister's son, got the polio vaccine. It was a big enough deal that she wrote about it in her journal. The whole community feared polio because they had seen its consequences. And for whatever reason, they trusted the government more then? I can't help wonder what has changed? and what the federal government (or local entities) could do to get rural folks and other older folks resistant to the COVID 19 vaccine to see the parallel to efforts to eradicate polio.

Melissa S. said...

This was a great post illuminating the hesitancy surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. Even among my own social circle, there is a sense of fear in regards to receiving the vaccine, not because their is a disbelief about COVID-19, but because the vaccine is so new, and the long term effects unknown. Although the excellent suggestions of promoting the vaccine in one's own community through trusted figures seems like an effective option for addressing hesitancy, it may not convince everyone. While we also face an unprecedented national emergency, patience and understanding seems key when discussing the vaccine. The rural and the urban may not be entirely dissimilar as vaccine doubts continue to persist across regions, races, and understandings.

Thomas Levendosky said...

The idea to pitch the vaccine in a similar way as arguments for the Second Amendment is interesting. I read this article in conjunction with another post you cited that focused on some of the more logistical aspects of the vaccine roll out. Some states are contracting with healthcare facilities and pharmacies to distribute the vaccine, and I think that reinforces the idea that the vaccine is a personal choice. In other words, b tying distribution into our current privatized healthcare system, which is always defended as promoting personal choice, it transmits the idea that the vaccine is another consumer choice. West Virginia has had success by relying on the national guard to distribute the vaccine, and I think that sends the right message: vaccination is a matter of national security. I think that message aligns with the Drew Altman's suggestion.

brandonreta1 said...

The 86% "trust rate" that rural Americans have in their own personal doctors is a potentially useful tool. A 10-15 minute phone call between a rural American and their doctor would allow the citizen to air any concerns he has with the vaccine, and would allow a doctor, whom they trust, to assuage those concerns. It might be impractical for a general care doctor to call every single patient they have to conduct these phone calls while still providing day-to-day care at whatever hospital they work at. Perhaps only calling the patients who are skeptical of taking the vaccine would make the process more feasible. This could always be done late in the vaccine rollout too, when the only ones left to be vaccinated are those who are skeptical.