Background: The COVID-19 pandemic brought the production of scientific knowledge onto the public agenda in real-time. News media and commentators analysed the successes and failures of the pandemic response in real-time, bringing the process of scientific inquiry, which is also fraught with uncertainty, onto the public agenda. We examine how Canadian newspapers framed scientific uncertainty in their initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and how journalists made sense of the scientific process. Methods: We conducted a framing analysis of 1143 news stories and opinion during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a qualitative analysis software, our analysis focused, first, on how scientific uncertainty was framed in hard news and opinion discourse (editorial, op-ed). Second, we compared how specialist health and science reporters discussed scientific evidence versus non-specialist reporters in hard news and columns. Results: Uncertainty emerged as a “master frame” across the sample, and four additional framing strategies were used by reporters and commentators when covering the pandemic: (1), evidence -focusing on presence or absence of it-; (2) transparency and leadership -focusing on the pandemic response-; (3) duelling experts – highlighting disagreement among experts or criticizing public health decisions for not adhering to expert recommendations-; and (4) mixed messaging -criticizing public health communication efforts. While specialist journalists understood that scientific knowledge evolves and the process is fraught with uncertainty, non-specialist reporters and commentators expressed frustration over changing public health guidelines, leading to the politicization of the pandemic response and condemnation of elected officials’ decisions. Conclusions: Managing scientific uncertainty in evolving science-policy situations requires timely and clear communication. Public health officials and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to data regarding infection prevention guidelines. Public health officials should quickly engage in communication course corrections if original messages are missing the intended mark, and clearly explain the shift. Finally, public health communicators should be aware of and more responsive to a variety of media reporters, who will bring different interpretative frames to their reporting. More care and effort are needed in these communication engagements to minimize inconsistencies, uncertainty, and politicization.

Background: More people are searching for immunization information online and potentially being exposed to misinformation and antivaccination sentiment in content and discussions on social media platforms. As vaccination coverage rates remain suboptimal in several developed countries, and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases become more prevalent, it is important that we build on previous research by analyzing themes in online vaccination discussions, including those that individuals may see without actively searching for information on immunization.Objective: The study aimed to explore the sentiments and themes behind an unsolicited debate on immunization in order to better inform public health interventions countering antivaccination sentiment.Methods: We analyzed and quantified 117 user-driven open-ended comments on immunization posted in the Comments section of a Facebook advertisement that targeted Canadian parents for recruitment into a larger study on immunization. Then, 2 raters coded all comments using content analysis.Results: Of 117 comments, 85 were posted by unique commentators, with most being female (65/85, 77%). The largest proportion of the immunization comments were positive (51/117, 43.6%), followed by negative (41/117, 35.0%), ambiguous (20/117, 17.1%), and hesitant (5/117, 4.3%). Inaccurate knowledge (27/130, 20.8%) and misperceptions of risk (23/130, 17.7%) were most prevalent in the 130 nonpositive comments. Other claims included distrust of pharmaceutical companies or government agencies (18/130, 13.8%), distrust of the health care system or providers (15/130, 11.5%), past negative experiences with vaccination or beliefs (10/130, 7.7%), and attitudes about health and prevention (10/130, 7.7%). Almost 40% (29/74, 39%) of the positive comments communicated the risks of not vaccinating, followed by judgments on the knowledge level of nonvaccinators (13/74, 18%). A total of 10 positive comments (10/74, 14%) specifically refuted the link between autism and vaccination.Conclusions: The presence of more than 100 unsolicited user-driven comments on a platform not intended for discussion, nor providing any information on immunization, illustrates the strong sentiments associated with immunization and the arbitrariness of the online platforms used for immunization debates. Health authorities should be more proactive in finding mechanisms to refute misinformation and misperceptions that are propagating uncontested online. Online debates and communications on immunization need to be identified by continuous monitoring in order for health authorities to understand the current themes and trends, and to engage in the discussion.

Child marriage and intimate partner violence have been globally recognized as human rights violations. Both indicators can derail an individual’s future and have various public health implications. Previous studies have shown an association between child marriage and domestic violence in low- and middle-income countries; however, data in Afghanistan are not known. This study aimed to assess the association between child marriage and domestic violence in Afghanistan. We used nationally representative data collected by the Demographic and Health Surveys to conduct logistic regression analyses. Child marriage was separated into three categories: very early marriage (<15 years), early marriage (15–17 years), and adult marriage (≥18 years). Domestic violence was the response variable and was assessed as any violence, physical violence, emotional violence, and sexual violence. Of the sample ( N = 21,324), 15% of the respondents were married before the age of 15; 35% were married between the ages of 15 and 17; and 50% were married as adults. After adjusting for current age, place of residence, and socioeconomic status, the odds of sexual violence were 22% higher among women who married before age 15 compared with those married as adults (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = [1.05, 1.40], p = .005). However, the odds of reporting any violence, physical violence, and emotional violence among those who married as children did not differ compared with those who married as adults. This may be due to a shift in traditional norms or underreporting in Afghanistan. This study adds to the body of research on child marriage and intimate partner violence, and specifically provides novel information on this association in Afghanistan.

Objectives: Our study aimed to (1) identify barriers to equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines for Canadians with disabilities and (2) present recommendations made by study participants to improve immunization programs in terms of inclusivity and equitable access. Methods: We invited Manitobans living with disabilities to participate in online focus groups. Focus groups were conducted across multiple disability experiences, although one focus group was advertised explicitly as offering simultaneous American Sign Language interpretation to encourage people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing to participate. Participants were asked about their perspectives on the management of COVID-19 public health measures and vaccination program rollout. Participants were also asked about barriers and facilitators of their vaccination experiences and if they had recommendations for improvement. Results: The participants identified three areas where they encountered routine barriers in accessing the COVID-19 vaccines: (1) vaccine information and appointment booking, (2) physical access to vaccination clinics, and (3) vaccination experience. While participants identified specific recommendations to improve vaccine accessibility for people with disabilities, the single most crucial advice consistently identified was to involve people with disabilities in developing accessible immunization programs. Conclusion: Meaningful engagement with people living with disabilities in immunization program planning would help ensure that people with disabilities, who already face significant challenges due to COVID-19, are offered the same protections as the rest of the population. These recommendations could be easily transferred to the administration of other large-scale immunization campaigns (e.g., influenza vaccines).

A multidisciplinary journal that focuses on public health and technology, public health informatics, mass media campaigns, surveillance, and innovation in public health practice and research. Also dedicated to rapid open data sharing during epidemics.

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses.