Participants in this study reported the use of various sources of information to meet their perceived information needs for making a decision about COVID-19 vaccines. These sources were: official (official organisations and health professionals), unofficial (social media and personal networks) and experiential. Participants emphasised the importance of personal networks and the reliability of the information collected from experiencing or witnessing COVID-19 vaccine outcomes. People in migrant communities collected, analysed and interpreted information and considered their level of concern about COVID-19 and its vaccines, sources of information, and public health policies to make a personal decision.
Health information seeking is the way in which people seek information about their risks, illnesses and protective measures (12). In analysing risk, people try to understand how likely it is that they experience a negative outcome from a health issue or protective measures such as COVID-19 and its vaccines, how they can reduce that risk and if the protective measures are beneficial (13, 14). To develop this understanding, people define their information needs, seek information, evaluate information and transform information into information that is relevant to their own beliefs, values and circumstances (13, 15–17)
Previous studies also reported that people use multiple sources of information to collect health information in satisfying their perceived information needs. These include not only official organisations and health professionals, but also personal networks including family and friends, and experiential information (18). In a survey on the same population of this study, more than 80% reported they have used official organisations and health care providers in Australia as a source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. However, the same proportion of participants also reported that social media and family and friends were one of the three main sources of information they used to collect information about COVID-19 vaccines (19). A study that included people living in Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA, Italy, and South Korea reported that government and friends and family were the most trusted sources of information about COVID-19 followed by news and social media.(20) A study in the USA among people who were hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine but have received it showed that health care/medical professionals were the most trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines, followed by personal networks that included family and friends, religious institutions and leaders, employers and co-workers. This study also reported the importance of testimonies from vaccinated individuals about their experiences as a source of information (21).
In the selection of information sources and processing risk information, people consider their information-gathering capacity and analyse costs and benefits to determine what information sources are more likely to provide them with sufficient and reliable information while at the same time requiring the least amount of effort (14, 22). This capacity is defined by a range of factors including literacy and digital literacy. Among migrants whose first language is different from the official language of the new country this capacity is also affected by language proficiency (23). In supporting all society members to have access to the right health information at the right time to protect their health, it is crucial that people’s capacity to gather health information is considered and strategies are developed to improve this capacity, especially in the time of health crises. In seeking health care and health information some migrants must navigate language barriers, unfamiliar health systems and unfamiliar modes of disseminating health information (24). Interventions are needed to support and improve migrants’ capacity to gather health information in their new environment
Our findings also showed the importance of personal networks and experiential information in shaping people’s understanding of COVID-19 vaccines. As reported in this study, this type of information can seem more compelling and people are more likely to accept this information. It is argued that, in making decisions about health, people organise and interpret health information through observation and discussion of cases of illness and death in personal networks and the public arena (25). In the context of migrants’ experiences, information may be collected through personal and social networks from their country of origin which may not be relevant to the situation in the new country and cause confusion. Presenting information through stories and referring to people’s experiences and observations need to be used in providing health information. Furthermore, since people evaluate risk using the information they find salient, and ignore information they see as irrelevant to their situation, the content of the information provided should be adapted to suit the characteristics of specific groups or individuals being targeted (26). In Australia, the engagement of community leaders was one of the strategies used to communicate official information with different migrant communities. As our findings showed using this strategy the community leaders used their understanding of communities and tailored the communication to make the information relevant to the community.
Strength and limitation
The qualitative approach provided opportunities to explore people’s experience with information sources for COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this study were born in 11 different countries and included health professionals and members of communities who actively supported their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. This enabled us to collect the viewpoints of a diverse group. The fact that the interviews were conducted in English may have affected people's willingness or ability to participate or share their experiences. However, the inclusion of participants who self-identified as community leaders and could share the experiences of their community members might have reduced this limitation. The qualitative nature of the study may limit the applicability of findings in other contexts.