| 要約: | Expert endorsement seems a promising tool in countering vaccine hesitancy. Yet findings from an experiment in the United Kingdom, published in this journal, found that repeated expert‐backed “debunking” messages had little effect on vaccination intentions or behaviors. At the same time, a similar study in Italy had earlier observed a slight increase in the intent to vaccinate—despite actual uptake remaining unchanged. In this article, I reflect on the differences between these studies and argue for a situated public health approach: one that opens up on diversity and responds to local trust dynamics, cultural nuances, and community values in shaping vaccine responses. Some publics may be reassured by scientific endorsement. Others could remain cautious, influenced by deeply held beliefs about risk and norms and values prioritized within their communities. I propose to interpret the null result published in the Journal of Trial and Error as pointing in the direction of public health communication strategies that move beyond a one-size-fits-all model, adapting to the unique social landscapes in which individuals live together and the places where their views are formed and expressed.
|
|---|
