Researchers at the University of Houston are applying ideas from marketing science to public health, suggesting that the way vaccines are described may influence whether people are willing to receive them. Their work focuses on vaccine hesitancy in the United States. It explores whether public health messaging could be more effective if it better reflects the values and concerns of different groups of people.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. reached nearly 30%, according to one study. Concerns ranged from lack of confidence in the vaccines to complacency and distrust of public health recommendations. Marketing professors Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy and Ye Hu from the C. T. Bauer College of Business believed many public health campaigns shared a common weakness: they often relied on broad messaging aimed at the general public rather than addressing the different perspectives and motivations of individuals.

Krishnamurthy said vaccination can be viewed as a behavioural challenge linked to marketplace decision-making. He explained that people are not uniform in their beliefs, opinions, or past experiences with vaccines, and that one of the central principles of marketing is recognising that different people respond differently to the same message. According to the researchers, campaigns that fail to consider these differences may miss opportunities to connect with vaccine-hesitant individuals.

In research published in the medical journal JAMA Network, the researchers examined how different descriptions of vaccination influenced people’s reactions. Their survey-based experiment involved more than 900 Americans who were asked to evaluate hypothetical vaccine options. The vaccine descriptions emphasised different themes, including complying with government recommendations, protecting others through social responsibility, and preserving personal autonomy, which the researchers described as “freedom framing.”

The findings showed that reactions depended largely on participants’ level of concern about vaccines. Among people with low levels of concern, the framing of the message did not make a significant difference. However, among participants with higher levels of concern, willingness to vaccinate increased when vaccines were described as supporting personal autonomy and individual choice. The difference was about six percentage points compared with other forms of messaging.

The researchers emphasised that scientific evidence about vaccines remains important, but they also argued that communication strategies can shape public responses. Krishnamurthy noted that some people prioritise protecting their health, while others place greater importance on personal freedom and autonomy. These values do not always align, and ignoring them may affect vaccine acceptance. While the current study relied on survey responses, the researchers say the next step will involve behavioural studies to determine whether “freedom framing” can increase actual vaccination rates in real-world settings.

More information: Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy et al, COVID-19 Vaccine Framing and Acceptance Among Adults Who Are Vaccine Hesitant, JAMA Network Open. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.4114

Journal information: JAMA Network Open Provided by University of Houston