Kummervold Per Egil, Schulz William S, Smout Elizabeth, Fernandez-Luque Luis, Larson Heidi J
Norut Northern Research Institute, P.O. Box 6434, Tromso Science Park, N-9294, Tromso, Norway.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 7;17(1):642. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4618-8.
Communication is of paramount importance in responding to health crises. We studied the media messages put forth by different stakeholders in two Ebola vaccine trials that became controversial in Ghana. These interactions between health authorities, political actors, and public citizens can offer key lessons for future research. Through an analysis of online media, we analyse stakeholder concerns and incentives, and the phases of the dispute, to understand how the dispute evolved to the point of the trials being suspended, and analyse what steps might have been taken to avert this outcome.
A web-based system was developed to download and analyse news reports relevant to Ebola vaccine trials. This included monitoring major online newspapers in each country with planned clinical trials, including Ghana. All news articles were downloaded, selecting out those containing variants of the words "Ebola," and "vaccine," which were analysed thematically by a team of three coders. Two types of themes were defined: critiques of the trials and rebuttals in favour of the trials. After reconciling differences between coders' results, the data were visualised and reviewed to describe and interpret the debate.
A total of 27,460 articles, published between 1 May and 30 July 2015, were collected from nine different newspapers in Ghana, of which 139 articles contained the keywords and met the inclusion criteria. The final codebook included 27 themes, comprising 16 critiques and 11 rebuttals. After coding and reconciliation, the main critiques (and their associated rebuttals) were selected for in-depth analysis, including statements about the trials being secret (mentioned in 21% of articles), claims that the vaccine trials would cause an Ebola outbreak in Ghana (33%), and the alleged impropriety of the incentives offered to participants (35%).
Perceptions that the trials were "secret" arose from a combination of premature news reporting and the fact that the trials were prohibited from conducting any publicity before being approved at the time that the story came out, which created an impression of secrecy. Fears about Ebola being spread in Ghana appeared in two forms, the first alleging that scientists would intentionally infect Ghanaians with Ebola in order to test the vaccine, and the second suggesting that the vaccine might give trial participants Ebola as a side-effect - over the course of the debate, the latter became the more prominent of the two variants. The incentives were sometimes criticised for being coercively large, but were much more often criticised for being too small, which may have been related to a misperception that the incentives were meant as compensation for the trials' risks, which were themselves exaggerated.
The rumours captured through this research indicate the variety of strong emotions drawn out by the trials, highlighting the importance of understanding the emotional and social context of such research. The uncertainty, fear, and distrust associated with the trials draw from the contemporary context of the Ebola outbreak, as well as longstanding historical issues in Ghana. By analysing the debate from its inception, we can see how the controversy unfolded, and identify points of concern that can inform health communication, suggesting that this tool may be valuable in future epidemics and crises.
在应对健康危机时,沟通至关重要。我们研究了在加纳引起争议的两项埃博拉疫苗试验中不同利益相关者发布的媒体信息。卫生当局、政治行为者和公众之间的这些互动可为未来研究提供关键经验教训。通过对在线媒体的分析,我们分析利益相关者的关切和动机以及争议阶段,以了解争议如何演变成试验暂停的局面,并分析本可采取哪些措施避免这一结果。
开发了一个基于网络的系统,用于下载和分析与埃博拉疫苗试验相关的新闻报道。这包括监测每个有计划进行临床试验的国家(包括加纳)的主要在线报纸。下载所有新闻文章,挑选出包含“埃博拉”和“疫苗”这两个词变体的文章,由三名编码员组成的团队对其进行主题分析。定义了两种主题类型:对试验的批评和支持试验的反驳。在协调编码员结果之间的差异后,将数据可视化并进行审查,以描述和解释这场辩论。
2015年5月1日至7月30日期间,从加纳的九家不同报纸上共收集到27460篇文章,其中139篇文章包含关键词并符合纳入标准。最终的编码手册包括27个主题,其中16个批评主题和11个反驳主题。经过编码和协调后,选择主要的批评(及其相关反驳)进行深入分析,包括关于试验是秘密进行的说法(在21%的文章中提及)、声称疫苗试验会在加纳引发埃博拉疫情的说法(33%)以及对给予参与者的激励措施不当的指控(35%)。
认为试验“秘密”的看法源于过早的新闻报道以及试验在当时故事曝光时未经批准不得进行任何宣传这一事实,这营造了一种秘密的印象。对埃博拉在加纳传播的担忧有两种形式,第一种是声称科学家会故意让加纳人感染埃博拉以测试疫苗,第二种是暗示疫苗可能会作为副作用使试验参与者感染埃博拉——在辩论过程中,后一种说法在两种变体中变得更为突出。激励措施有时因过大而被批评具有强制性,但更多时候是因过小而受到批评,这可能与一种误解有关,即认为激励措施是对试验风险的补偿,而试验风险本身被夸大了。
通过这项研究捕捉到的谣言表明了试验引发的各种强烈情绪,凸显了理解此类研究的情感和社会背景的重要性。与试验相关的不确定性、恐惧和不信任源于埃博拉疫情的当代背景以及加纳长期存在的历史问题。通过从一开始就分析这场辩论,我们可以看到争议是如何展开的,并确定可用于健康沟通的关切点,这表明该工具在未来的流行病和危机中可能很有价值。