This Report presents empirical evidence relevant to assessing the claim--reported widely in the media and other sources--that the public is growing increasingly anxious about the safety of childhood vaccinations. Based on survey and experimental methods (N = 2,316), the Report presents two principal findings: first, that vaccine risks are neither a matter of concern for the vast majority of the public nor an issue of contention among recognizable demographic, political, or cultural subgroups; and second, that ad hoc forms of risk communication that assert there is mounting resistance to childhood immunizations themselves pose a risk of creating misimpressions and arousing sensibilities that could culturally polarize the public and diminish motivation to cooperate with universal vaccination programs. Based on these findings the Report recommends that government agencies, public health professionals, and other constituents of the public health establishment (1) promote the use of valid and appropriately focused empirical methods for investigating vaccine-risk perceptions and formulating responsive risk communication strategies; (2) discourage ad hoc risk communication based on impressionistic or psychometrically invalid alternatives to these methods; (3) publicize the persistently high rates of childhood vaccination and high levels of public support for universal immunization in the U.S.; and (4) correct ad hoc communicators who misrepresent U.S. vaccination coverage and its relationship to the incidence of childhood diseases.

Vaccine- and vaccination-related crises require a communication response that is different from the communication strategies used to promote the benefits and importance of vaccines in general. This document presents the technical guidance needed to develop a communication plan that is appropriate for managing crises related to vaccine safety. This guidance will be useful for managers in the areas of immunization and vaccine and vaccination safety. They will also help preparedness and response teams working in safety crises to optimize their communication plans in order to regain, maintain, or strengthen trust in vaccines, vaccination, and immunization programs in general. Each chapter presents a phase (preparation, implementation, and evaluation) with suggested actions and support tools to prepare, implement, and evaluate a communication response in a crisis situation. Also, some sections can also be used to strengthen routine national communication activities such as interaction with media, message generation, spokespeople preparation among others. The current document complements the Manual for the surveillance of events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization (ESAVI) in the Region of the Americas. This document is published within the framework of a joint project that aims to promote communication-related to safe vaccination in the Region of the Americas and support health authorities that need to develop a communication plan to manage crises related to vaccine safety. Some of the sections in this publication are based on the guidance documents available in the WHO Regional Office for Europe's virtual library and can be consulted on their website.

Although vaccinations have been an incredible public health achievement, these current successes are threatened by growing rates of vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy presents numerous communication challenges, which underscores how poor communication can undermine vaccine acceptance in any setting. This case study uses publicly available childhood immunization informational webpages, retrieved through a simulated Google search, at several different search locations, as well as a purposive search of three Canadian health agency websites. This study found that while many of the examined pro-immunization webpages excel at providing crucial vaccine information, there remain many outstanding opportunities for improved communication and engagement with target populations. Moreover, anti-immunization webpages use several persuasive communication strategies that pro-immunization webpages do not. These include personal stories, referencing scientific studies, and employing an alarmist tone when discussing vaccine risks and ingredients. Recommendations for improved risk communication, and informed decision-making are offered: communicating honestly about benefits and safety risks; including using quantitative baseline and risk information; provide readers an opportunity to assess what outcomes matter most to them; making effective use of visual aids; providing authors' qualifications; and pre-testing communications with target groups for reading levels and message effectiveness.