Trusted docs dispel vaccine myths, but many don't have one
KFF data shows that those with a trusted provider are less likely to believe vaccine misinformation, but separate reports indicate many patients still lack a usual source of care.
Having a usual source of care is essential to chronic disease prevention and good clinical outcomes, but a new report from KFF shows that having a trusted source of healthcare provider has another benefit: mitigating vaccine hesitancy.
However, prior reporting indicates that many patients lack a usual source of care or a trusted provider. This limits providers' ability to dispel vaccine myths and provide accurate medical information.
Using survey data from nearly 2,500 adult respondents, the researchers found a distinct line between those who do and do not have a trusted healthcare provider.
For example, 46% of those without a healthcare provider think it's definitely or probably true that more people have died from the COVID-19 vaccine than the virus itself. Another 39% are skeptical of the MMR vaccine, stating that it has definitely or probably been proven to cause autism in children.
Meanwhile, a third of respondents without a usual source of care agreed that mRNA vaccines can change your DNA, and 27% said the measles vaccine is more dangerous than being infected by measles.
In other words, those without a trusted healthcare provider to answer their questions about vaccines are more likely to hold vaccine-skeptical beliefs.
On the flip side, those who do have a usual source of care are less likely to hold vaccine-skeptical views.
Only 24% thought the COVID-19 vaccine was more dangerous than the virus itself, while the same proportion agreed with the statement that MMR vaccines have been proven to cause autism in kids. Likewise, only 21% agreed that mRNA vaccines can change your DNA, while only 16% believed the measles vaccine is more dangerous than measles itself.
Similar trends emerged when comparing folks who use social media or AI to learn about health.
For example, 37% of those using social media for health information agreed that MMR vaccines have been proven to cause autism in children, as do 35% of people who regularly use AI. That compares to just 16% of those who never use social media for health information and 20% who never use AI.
It is unsurprising that those who use social media and AI tools for health information are more likely to believe medical misinformation. For one thing, these resources are not necessarily vetted by medical professionals, meaning there is a greater likelihood that inaccurate health information reaches users. In the case of social media, in particular, creator bias could also play a role.
What's more, there's evidence that social media and AI often fill in where healthcare falls short. Earlier this month, KFF published data showing that patient AI use is driven by a need for more cost-effective healthcare access, while most of those getting information from social media say it's because they want answers immediately.
In other words, AI and social media are an answer when patients can't visit with a provider, no less a provider they trust.
Healthcare providers are key to dispelling vaccine myths
These findings come as medical misinformation, particularly concerning vaccines, runs rampant. Relatively recent changes to the nation's federal public health agencies have raised some providers' eyebrows.
"We've been dealing with misinformation for many years," Jesse Hackell, M.D., the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Pediatric Workforce, said in a previous interview.
"What's different now is the platform that this misinformation -- and even disinformation… is much more prominent," Hackell said. "It's RFK Jr. Such as it is, it's the ACIP."
Healthcare professionals -- especially pediatricians, primary care providers and family medicine clinicians -- should leverage the longstanding relationships they have with patients and their families. These clinicians have given effective medical advice that has resolved issues before; they can leverage that when discussing vaccines.
Moreover, conversations around vaccines need to get to the root of a patient's or caregiver's concern. If a caregiver is fearful that a vaccine will harm their child, the clinician can compassionately give them information to help them overcome that fear.
All of this is easier said than done. Empathic healthcare providers who are effective communicators may still encounter patients who are reticent to get vaccines. In these cases, providers can continue to build trust by respecting a patient's bodily autonomy and otherwise continuing to work to improve their health.
The U.S. has a usual source of care problem
Part of the issue is not just that patients don't have a doctor they trust. In fact, it's mostly that they don't have a doctor at all.
Nearly 100 million people lack a usual source of care, according to a report from the National Association of Community Health Centers. This problem is greater in the U.S. than in similarly developed nations, a Commonwealth Fund report adds.
The good news is that overall trends show the nation's healthcare access problems are improving. According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, the proportion of adults reporting no usual source of care has declined from 15.3% in 2008 to 10.6% in 2023.
But with growing issues in the provider workforce and rising healthcare costs, it will remain burdensome for patients to visit the doctor. Adding insult to injury, changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces could lead to uninsurance and contribute to a growing problem in healthcare access.
Sara Heath is an executive editor at Xtelligent Healthcare Media, where she covers patient engagement, healthcare policy and health IT.
