COVID-19 两年：健康传播研究的新旧挑战

Full text

1. Introduction

In mid-2020 we ran an editorial in PEC, Effective health communication–a key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, that identified specific areas where more effective health communication could play a critical role in preventing and mitigating the deleterious effects of COVID-19 [1]. These ideas were based on how health communication had the potential to keep people safe and save lives by helping people navigate the massive flow of COVID-19 information, addressing uncertainty and fear, promoting behavior change, and identifying pandemic-related challenges for clinicians. Now, two years into the pandemic, we are watching all time high numbers of new cases, due to the Omicron variety of the virus. Much has changed in two years, but old as well as new challenges for health communication research and practice still exist.

In the current issue, we publish a Special Section of papers related to the COVID-19 pandemic1. In this editorial, we overview some of the themes reflected in the papers and point to areas of research where, given what we now know (and do not know), effective health communication can help mitigate death and suffering associated with COVID-19.

2. Information and misinformation about precautionary behavior

Throughout the pandemic, the public has had massive information needs, both about risk to be infected, how to behave to avoid infection, and about vaccine effectiveness and side effects. Information about the pandemic on the internet and in the media has been overwhelming. In addition to scientifically grounded and useful information, social media have been overflowing with fake news, rumors and misinformation [2]. Several papers in the present issue discuss different aspects of information giving and misinformation.

For health personnel and health educators, it is important to know that some individuals are more likely to believe misinformation than others. For instance, Guidry et al. [3] report that cancer survivors currently undergoing treatment are more likely to believe misinformation related to COVID-19 than those without a cancer history. The findings indicate that some individuals may be more vulnerable to misinformation than others, due to individual factors, in this case related to undergoing treatment for cancer. Future research is needed to identify such factors.

One health communication challenge during the pandemic has been how best to persuade people to keep a social distance and to adhere to other precautionary behaviors. Kemp et al. [4] tested different strategies to promote reduction in social interaction, and put advice to abstain from social interaction up against a more moderate harm avoidance strategy (e.g, when interacting with others, wear masks, stay 6 feet apart). The authors reported that abstinence messages were perceived as ‘threats to freedom’ and less effective than harm reduction messages. This study highlights how effective message framing can influence behavioral intentions, yet overcoming the resistance of message recipients with strongly held negative beliefs toward the behavior remains a challenge.

3. Information and misinformation about the vaccines

The area probably most vulnerable to misinformation is related to vaccines. Evidence to date clearly indicates that people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 are significantly less likely to get infected or have serious disease if infected. Thus, getting more ‘shots in arms’ is paramount to ending the risks of COVID-19 infections. Effective health communication plays a central role in this endeavor through persuasive campaigns that not only promote vaccinations, but also try to mitigate vaccine hesitancy or resistance.

A number of studies have examined reasons people have for their vaccine hesitancy. In a recent systematic review, Aw et al.[5] found several cognitive factors that consistently were associated with vaccine hesitancy, such as believing that COVID-19 is not severe, lower self-perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, lesser fear of COVID-19- as well as beliefs that vaccines are not safe. Such factors would be expected from theories on health related behavior, such as the Health Belief Model. An example of how individuals weigh different cognitive factors is the study reported in the present issue by Zheng et al., [6] who found that when deciding whether to take vaccination, American adults have more concern about the probability of contracting side effects of COVID-19 vaccines than the severity of these side effects.

A number of different approaches to provide information about vaccines has been tested [7]. For instance, in an online experiment reported in this issue of PEC, Yuan et al. [8] tested different video messages (individual-centered, community-centered, country-centered) to determine whether intention to get vaccinated was related to type of appeal. The authors found that the individual-centered messages were most effective, which is not that surprising given the participants were from the United States. However, individuals who reported a more communitarian world view perceived the individual centered message less effective than did those with an individualism world view. This suggest individuals are motivated selectively to respond to claims about the vaccines that cohere with their world view.

4. Disruptions in care and the emergence of telehealth

Medical care for chronically-ill patients has been severely disrupted during the pandemic as appointments have been cancelled and treatment and other procedures have been postponed [9], [10]. In an effort to reduce COVID-19 infection risks to patients, family, and clinicians, many in person health care services have been delivered by telehealth, either with telephone or video visits [11], [12]. This includes family restrictions on visits with loved ones in hospitals or care facilities [13]. In this issue of PEC, two papers address the challenges family members faced when electronic communication (phone or video) with family members was substituted for face-to-face visits with clinicians and patients. From interviews with 62 surrogates of critically ill adults, Greenberg et al. [14] extracted several themes related to communication challenges—disruptions in communicating with the medical team and with family members, keeping adequately informed about their loved one’s status, and distress related to visitor restrictions. To adjust to COVID-19 restrictions, these surrogates worked with clinicians to establish routines for receiving telephone updates from the medical team, finding some comfort in at least having video calls with the patient. In the Rahul et al. [15] paper, family members of hospitalized COVID-19 patients found electronic communication acceptable in the absence of face-to-face visits, but varied in their preferences type of media (voice call, video call, or SMS text).

5. Helping people cope with COVID-19 anxiety and uncertainty

COVID-19 has contributed to considerable anxiety and uncertainty related to risks of infection, serious disease, and social isolation [16]. For people being treated for serious disease, COVID-19 worry can lead to poorer treatment outcomes, poorer symptom management, and poorer health-related quality of life [17], [18], along with delays and disruptions for needed procedures and treatment [19], [20]. COVID-19 related stress and uncertainty have also complicated clinician-patient-family communication and decision-making. For example, in this issue of PEC, Spalding et al [21] report that a unique predictor of surrogates treatment preferences and accuracy (in relation to the patient) was COVID-19-related anxiety, such that surrogates with greater anxiety about COVID-19 selected more intensive treatments for patients. This was particularly true for patient-surrogate agreement on ventilation which was the lowest compared to other treatments (e.g., CPR, feeding tube). The authors speculate that this may be associated with the well-publicized concern about shortage of ventilators in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.

Yet, helping people manage COVID-19 uncertainty goes well beyond fears of infection, treatment decision-making, and social isolation. The Thompson et al. [22] paper in this issue of PEC highlights the concerns of COVID-19 ‘long haulers;’ those who are recovering slowly from COVID-19 infections. After analyzing over 30,000 online posts, the authors extracted 16 themes reflected including the experience of heightened anxiety related to COVID-19 symptoms, immunity, challenges of symptom management, uncertainty about diagnosis, and personal identity (as a long hauler). Thompson et al. observe that one of the most important therapeutic functions of this online community was offering social support as well as validating symptoms reported by others, something which clinicians as well should do.

6. An agenda for health communication research two years into COVID-19

Two years into the pandemic, many of the communication challenges discussed in the early phase of COVID-19 [1] remain. However, as the pandemic has developed, new questions have arisen, in all of the areas mentioned above.

6.1. Precautionary measures and COVID fatigue

As we enter the third year of COVID-19, many individuals are experiencing COVID fatigue, which the World Health Organization (WHO) defines as a demotivation to follow recommended protective behaviors, as people are experiencing negative emotions and are tired of wearing face masks and keeping a distance. The challenge for health communication practice and research is how can we prevent attitudes of indifference and slack behaviors such as not wearing masks and social distancing? WHO provides several recommendations for communication policy and practice, which include being transparent (e.g., sharing reasons behind restrictions), being consistent in messaging (e.g., avoid contradictory messages such as how long should one isolate) across different experts and policymakers, and focus messaging on engagement and motivation, not judgment and blame [23]. The challenge for health communication specialists is how to best develop interventions and put these recommendations in practice.

6.2. Vaccine promoting messages and messengers

Early in the pandemic, some research indicated that intentions to get vaccinated once vaccines was available were predicted by perceived norms and instrumental beliefs that vaccines will work [24]. While vaccine hesitancy in the early months of the pandemic was associated with the types of cognitive and emotional factors mentioned above, in the course of 2021 vaccine hesitancy has morphed into vaccine resistance and refusal, often on more ideological grounds. This is due to several factors including the appearance of conspiracy theories [25]. ideologically based responses to government efforts to encourage/require vaccinations, beliefs that vaccine messaging and policy restrict freedom of choice [26], and an evolving information environment increasingly complicated by the complexity of a vaccine information that includes new information on COVID mutations, misinformation (false information the sender believes to be true) and disinformation (false information the sender knows to be false) [27], [28]. Hence, from a health communication perspective, the challenge for vaccine promotion has evolved from educating message recipients about vaccine effectiveness and modest side effects to overcoming hostile attitudes based on ideology and to rebuffing false information [29], [30].

How can these cognitive and ideological barriers to accepting vaccines be overcome? First, one obvious measure is to insure that the information given is easy to understand. However, that is not always the case. In a study published in the present issue, Okuhara et al. [31] found that vaccine information supplied by health care providers is more difficult to read than recommended. Communication experts should test the readability of all information about vaccines and other aspects of the pandemic. In addition to readability of information, patient understanding can also be influenced by the quality of communication in clinical encounters. In this issue of PEC, Zheng et al. [6] reported that more patient-centered communication by clinicians moderated the relationship between vaccine knowledge and perceived risk of COVID-19 vaccine side effects.

Second, to overcome ideologically based skepticism towards vaccines, a focus on the message content is probably not enough. It may be equally important to invest in the most trusted messengers. Clinicians, typically a trusted source of information to most people, can help overcome vaccine resistance and hesitation, by strongly recommending vaccinations and the reasons why. For example, parents hesitant to have their children receive the HPV vaccine were more likely to have their child vaccinated when pediatricians made a strong recommendation for getting vaccinated and a clear rationale for why compared to parents whose doctors offered a weak recommendation [32]. To obtain maximum adherence to precautionary measures and vaccines, politicians and government agencies should employ messengers who radiate trustworthiness and are good communicators.

6.3. Effective communication using telehealth

With respect to telehealth services, most surveys conducted during the pandemic indicate patents are relatively satisfied with telehealth alternatives [33], [34]. However, many patients also miss the ‘in person’ connection with health care providers and are concerned that telehealth may limit clinician’s ability to show compassion, provide timely information, and address emotional distress [35], [36]. Although telehealth options for certain health care services are likely ‘here to stay,’ more research is needed on how to best adapt telehealth to insure quality health care [37]. We propose two lines of health communication research in the future.

First, more attention should be given to exploring patient preferences for telehealth. For example, surveys indicate that patients vary in their preferences for telehealth for certain health care services with some hoping telehealth remains an option for the future [38]; others want to get back to normal pre-pandemic care [39]. A question to address is what health care services and for which patients should telehealth be an option? And if telehealth is a preferred option, through which medium? For example, of those patients that want telehealth as an option, some prefer the telephone whereas others think video visits are more satisfying [40].

Second, electronic communication (through phone or video-conferencing) can limit the spontaneity of interaction and nonverbal cues necessary when clinicians are trying to establish rapport, be compassionate, reassure, and show empathy. Thus, future research needs to help clinicians acquire communication skills that will enhance their ‘webside manner’ to learn communication techniques (e.g., more reliance on talk, using gestures, adjusting camera angle and closeness) for building rapport, signaling attentiveness, and showing care and concern through various media platforms (e.g., video, phone, SMS text) [41].

6.4. Helping people cope with the long-term uncertainty about the pandemic

COVID-related uncertainty and anxiety will remain an issue that policy-makers, political institutions, clinicians, and the general public must contend with for the foreseeable future. Effective health communication must play a central role in helping the world cope with and manage the lingering, evolving effects of COVID-19. Effective clinician-patient information-exchange and relationship-building, two domains of patient-centered communication that patients value most, can help patients and family deal with stress associated with uncertainty related to the unknown of the pandemic [42]. However, there will also be a need to have clinicians fine tune skills in two other domains of communication, such as responding to difficult feelings and managing uncertainty, which clinicians often score less well on compared to information-giving and decision-making [43].

7. Conclusions

In many ways, the biomedical science associated with testing for infection, identifying virus mutations, and developing effective vaccines against COVID-19 has been remarkable. As of today, those vaccinated and boosted are significantly less likely to get infected or have serious disease relative to the unvaccinated. Yet, biomedical science cannot solve vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, ideological resistance to vaccination, disruptions in health care, and how best to cope with the lingering uncertainty and anxiety of living with the pandemic. These tasks fall on the shoulders of communication scientists and professional communicators. In this editorial, we offer ideas for where future research can address these challenges; in this issue of PEC, several papers are presented embracing this charge.

全文翻译（仅供参考）

1 . 介绍

2020 年年中，我们在 PEC 上发表了一篇社论，有效的健康沟通——抗击 COVID-19 大流行的关键因素，确定了更有效的健康沟通可以在预防和减轻 COVID-19 的有害影响方面发挥关键作用的特定领域。19 [1]. 这些想法是基于健康沟通如何通过帮助人们驾驭大量 COVID-19 信息流、解决不确定性和恐惧、促进行为改变以及确定临床医生与流行病相关的挑战来保护人们的安全和挽救生命的潜力。现在，大流行已经两年了，由于病毒的 Omicron 种类，我们正在观察空前大量的新病例。两年来发生了很大变化，但健康传播研究和实践的新旧挑战仍然存在。

在本期中，我们发表了与 COVID-19 大流行1相关的论文特刊。在这篇社论中，我们概述了论文中反映的一些主题，并指出了研究领域，鉴于我们现在知道（和不知道），有效的健康沟通可以帮助减轻与 COVID-19 相关的死亡和痛苦。

2 . 关于预防行为的信息和错误信息

在整个大流行期间，公众有大量的信息需求，包括被感染的风险、如何避免感染以及疫苗的有效性和副作用。互联网和媒体上有关大流行的信息铺天盖地。除了有科学依据和有用的信息外，社交媒体上充斥着假新闻、谣言和错误信息[2]。本期的几篇论文讨论了信息提供和错误信息的不同方面。

对于卫生人员和健康教育者来说，重要的是要知道有些人比其他人更容易相信错误信息。例如，Guidry 等人。[3]报告说，目前正在接受治疗的癌症幸存者比没有癌症病史的人更有可能相信与 COVID-19 相关的错误信息。研究结果表明，由于个人因素，有些人可能比其他人更容易受到错误信息的影响，在这种情况下，与接受癌症治疗有关。未来的研究需要确定这些因素。

大流行期间的一个健康沟通挑战是如何最好地说服人们保持社交距离并遵守其他预防行为。坎普等人。[4]测试了促进减少社交互动的不同策略，并将避免社交互动的建议与更温和的避免伤害策略相提并论（例如，与他人互动时，戴口罩，保持 6 英尺的距离）。作者报告说，禁欲信息被视为“对自由的威胁”，不如减少伤害信息有效。这项研究强调了有效的信息框架如何影响行为意图，但克服对行为抱有强烈负面信念的信息接收者的抵制仍然是一个挑战。

3 . 有关疫苗的信息和错误信息

最容易受到错误信息影响的领域可能与疫苗有关。迄今为止的证据清楚地表明，接种了 COVID-19 疫苗的人感染或感染严重疾病的可能性显着降低。因此，获得更多的“强心剂”对于结束 COVID-19 感染的风险至关重要。通过有说服力的运动，有效的健康沟通在这项工作中发挥着核心作用，这些运动不仅促进疫苗接种，而且还试图减轻疫苗犹豫或抗药性。

许多研究调查了人们对疫苗犹豫不决的原因。在最近的系统评价中，Aw 等人。[5]发现了几个与疫苗犹豫始终相关的认知因素，例如认为 COVID-19 并不严重、感染 COVID-19 的自我感知风险较低、对 COVID-19 的恐惧较小以及相信疫苗不安全。这些因素可以从健康相关行为的理论中得到预期，例如健康信念模型。个体如何权衡不同认知因素的一个例子是郑等人在本期报道的研究[6]，他们发现在决定是否接种疫苗时，美国成年人更关心概率感染 COVID-19 疫苗的副作用比这些副作用的严重程度。

已经测试了许多不同的方法来提供有关疫苗的信息[7]。例如，在本期 PEC 报道的在线实验中，Yuan 等人。[8]测试了不同的视频信息（以个人为中心、以社区为中心、以国家为中心）以确定接种疫苗的意图是否与上诉类型有关。作者发现以个人为中心的信息最有效，考虑到参与者来自美国，这并不奇怪。然而，报告更多社区主义世界观的个人认为以个人为中心的信息不如那些拥有个人主义世界观的人有效。这表明个人有选择性地对与他们的世界观相一致的疫苗声明做出回应。

4 . 护理中断和远程医疗的出现

在大流行期间，由于预约被取消，治疗和其他程序被推迟，慢性病患者的医疗服务受到严重干扰[9]，[10]。为了降低患者、家人和临床医生感染 COVID-19 的风险，许多面对面的医疗保健服务已通过远程医疗提供，包括电话或视频访问[11]、[12]。这包括家庭限制在医院或护理机构探望亲人[13]. 在本期 PEC 中，两篇论文讨论了家庭成员在与家庭成员的电子通信（电话或视频）取代与临床医生和患者的面对面访问时所面临的挑战。通过对 62 名危重成人代理人的采访，Greenberg 等人。[14]提取了与沟通挑战相关的几个主题——与医疗团队和家庭成员沟通的中断、充分了解亲人的状况以及与访客限制相关的痛苦。为了适应 COVID-19 的限制，这些代理人与临床医生合作，建立了从医疗团队接收电话更新的例程，至少在与患者进行视频通话时找到了一些安慰。在拉胡尔等人。[15]在论文中，住院 COVID-19 患者的家庭成员发现，在没有面对面访问的情况下，电子通信是可以接受的，但他们偏好的媒体类型（语音通话、视频通话或 SMS 文本）各不相同。

5 . 帮助人们应对 COVID-19 的焦虑和不确定性

COVID-19 导致了与感染风险、严重疾病和社会孤立相关的相当大的焦虑和不确定性[16]。对于因严重疾病而接受治疗的人，担心 COVID-19 会导致较差的治疗结果、较差的症状管理和较差的健康相关生活质量[17]、[18]，以及所需程序和治疗的延误和中断[ 19]，[20]。COVID-19 相关的压力和不确定性也使临床医生-患者-家庭的沟通和决策变得复杂。例如，在本期 PEC 中，Spalding 等人[21]报告称，替代治疗偏好和准确性（与患者相关）的唯一预测因素是 COVID-19 相关焦虑，因此对 COVID-19 焦虑程度更大的替代治疗为患者选择了更强化的治疗。与其他治疗（例如，心肺复苏术、饲管）相比，患者与代理人对通气的一致意见尤其如此。作者推测，这可能与广为人知的对治疗 COVID-19 患者的医院呼吸机短缺的担忧有关。

然而，帮助人们管理 COVID-19 的不确定性远远超出了对感染、治疗决策和社会孤立的恐惧。汤普森等人。[22]本期 PEC 中的论文强调了 COVID-19“长途运输者”的担忧；那些从 COVID-19 感染中恢复缓慢的人。在分析了 30,000 多个在线帖子后，作者提取了 16 个反映的主题，包括与 COVID-19 症状、免疫力、症状管理挑战、诊断的不确定性和个人身份（作为长途运输者）相关的高度焦虑的经历。汤普森等人。观察到这个在线社区最重要的治疗功能之一是提供社会支持以及验证其他人报告的症状，这也是临床医生应该做的事情。

6 . COVID-19 两年后的健康传播研究议程

大流行两年后，在 COVID-19 [1]的早期阶段讨论的许多沟通挑战仍然存在。然而，随着大流行的发展，在上述所有领域都出现了新的问题。

6.1 . 预防措施和 COVID 疲劳

随着我们进入 COVID-19 的第三个年头，许多人正在经历 COVID 疲劳，世界卫生组织 (WHO) 将其定义为遵循建议的保护行为的动力不足，因为人们正在经历负面情绪并且厌倦了戴口罩和保持距离。健康传播实践和研究面临的挑战是如何防止不戴口罩和保持社交距离等冷漠态度和懈怠行为？世卫组织为沟通政策和实践提供了几项建议，其中包括透明（例如，分享限制背后的原因）、在不同专家和决策者之间的信息传递保持一致（例如，避免相互矛盾的信息，例如应该隔离多长时间），以及集中信息传递关于参与和动机，而不是判断和责备[23]。健康传播专家面临的挑战是如何最好地制定干预措施并将这些建议付诸实践。

6.2 . 疫苗宣传信息和信使

在大流行初期，一些研究表明，一旦有疫苗可用，就会有接种疫苗的意图，这是由人们认为疫苗会起作用的规范和工具性信念所预测的[24]。虽然大流行初期的疫苗犹豫与上述认知和情绪因素的类型有关，但在 2021 年期间，疫苗犹豫已演变为疫苗抗药性和拒绝，通常是出于意识形态方面的原因。这是由于几个因素，包括阴谋论的出现[25]。对政府鼓励/要求接种疫苗的努力作出基于意识形态的反应，认为疫苗信息和政策限制了选择自由[26]，以及不断发展的信息环境，疫苗信息的复杂性日益复杂，其中包括关于 COVID 突变的新信息、错误信息（发送者认为是真实的虚假信息）和虚假信息（发送者知道是虚假的虚假信息）[27]，[28]。因此，从健康传播的角度来看，疫苗推广的挑战已经从向信息接收者宣传疫苗有效性和适度的副作用转变为克服基于意识形态的敌对态度和拒绝虚假信息[29]、[30]。

如何克服这些接受疫苗的认知和意识形态障碍？首先，一个明显的措施是确保所提供的信息易于理解。然而，情况并非总是如此。在本期发表的一项研究中，Okuhara 等人。[31]发现医疗保健提供者提供的疫苗信息比推荐的更难阅读。传播专家应测试有关疫苗和大流行其他方面的所有信息的可读性。除了信息的可读性，患者的理解也会受到临床接触中沟通质量的影响。在本期 PEC 中，Zheng 等人。[6]报道称，临床医生更多以患者为中心的沟通缓和了疫苗知识与 COVID-19 疫苗副作用感知风险之间的关系。

其次，要克服基于意识形态的对疫苗的怀疑，仅仅关注信息内容可能是不够的。投资于最值得信赖的信使可能同样重要。临床医生通常是大多数人值得信赖的信息来源，可以通过强烈推荐疫苗接种及其原因来帮助克服疫苗抗药性和犹豫。例如，与医生提供弱建议的父母相比，当儿科医生强烈建议接种 HPV 疫苗并明确解释原因时，犹豫是否让孩子接种 HPV 疫苗的父母更有可能让孩子接种疫苗[32]. 为了最大限度地遵守预防措施和疫苗，政治家和政府机构应聘用具有可信赖性且善于沟通的信使。

6.3 . 使用远程医疗进行有效沟通

关于远程医疗服务，在大流行期间进行的大多数调查表明，专利对远程医疗替代方案比较满意[33]、[34]。然而，许多患者也错过了与医疗保健提供者的“面对面”联系，并担心远程医疗可能会限制临床医生表现出同情心、提供及时信息和解决情绪困扰的能力[35]、[36]。尽管某些医疗保健服务的远程医疗选择可能会“继续存在”，但仍需要更多的研究来研究如何最好地调整远程医疗以确保高质量的医疗保健[37]。我们在未来提出了两条健康传播研究方向。

首先，应该更多地关注探索患者对远程医疗的偏好。例如，调查表明，对于某些医疗保健服务，患者对远程医疗的偏好各不相同，有些人希望远程医疗仍然是未来的一种选择[38]；其他人希望恢复正常的大流行前护理[39]。需要解决的一个问题是，哪些医疗保健服务以及哪些患者应该选择远程医疗？如果远程医疗是首选，通过哪种媒介？例如，在那些希望远程医疗作为一种选择的患者中，有些人更喜欢电话，而另一些人则认为视频访问更令人满意[40]。

其次，当临床医生试图建立融洽关系、富有同情心、安抚人心和表现出同理心时，电子通信（通过电话或视频会议）可以限制互动和非语言暗示的自发性。因此，未来的研究需要帮助临床医生获得沟通技巧，从而增强他们的“网络方式”，以学习沟通技巧（例如，更多地依赖谈话、使用手势、调整摄像机角度和接近度），以建立融洽关系、表示关注和表现出关心并通过各种媒体平台（例如，视频、电话、短信）[41]进行关注。

6.4 . 帮助人们应对大流行的长期不确定性

在可预见的未来，与 COVID 相关的不确定性和焦虑仍将是决策者、政治机构、临床医生和公众必须应对的问题。有效的健康沟通必须在帮助世界应对和管理 COVID-19 挥之不去的、不断演变的影响方面发挥核心作用。有效的临床医患信息交流和关系建立是患者最重视的以患者为中心的沟通的两个领域，可以帮助患者和家人应对与大流行未知相关的不确定性相关的压力[42]. 然而，还需要临床医生在其他两个沟通领域微调技能，例如应对困难的感觉和管理不确定性，与提供信息和决策相比，临床医生通常在这些方面得分较低[43] .

7 . 结论

在许多方面，与检测感染、识别病毒突变和开发针对 COVID-19 的有效疫苗相关的生物医学科学都非常引人注目。截至今天，与未接种疫苗的人相比，接种疫苗和加强疫苗的人感染或患严重疾病的可能性要小得多。然而，生物医学科学无法解决疫苗犹豫、错误信息、对疫苗接种的意识形态抵抗、医疗保健中断，以及如何最好地应对与大流行共存的挥之不去的不确定性和焦虑。这些任务落在了传播科学家和专业传播者的肩上。在这篇社论中，我们就未来研究可以解决这些挑战的地方提出想法；在本期 PEC 中，发表了几篇包含这一指控的论文。

THE

END

打赏