Hello all! I hope your year is going well so far. After doing some more reading on current events I found a couple ongoing strategies that seemed pretty interesting to me. On the topic of vaccines, this article will be diving into the push for vaccination in Sub-Saharan Africa. Hope you enjoy!
The World Health Organization (WHO) and several Sub-Saharan African governments have launched a new initiative to improve vaccination rates in the region. The program, which started nearly two years ago, aims to address “vaccine hesitancy” in surrounding areas. “This is an innovative program that is going to push strategies like never before to shorten the path from a clinic to a patient who receives a vaccine,” says John Williams, regional project director for WHO.
The campaign found its foundation in the psychology of behavioral economics. It used principles that the relatively new-to-the-public health field has evolved in order to change public behavior for what is today a healthcare initiative that commands a large sector of 21st-century public health. This increase in commanding healthcare authority will no doubt be assisted by the vaccination program led by PAHO (People of American Health Organization), which serves the people of the Americas with vaccinations of all kinds against all manner of infectious diseases.
What I found interesting were the several fundamental behavioral economics concepts, especially loss aversion and social norms, that were built into the campaign. Loss aversion basically posits people would rather “not lose” then win, preferring a guarantee over a risk and a reward. The campaign made use of this notion by stressing the significant potential health losses of not getting vaccinated and, conversely, the major health benefits associated with getting the shot, this type of framing is necessary to actually apply to concept in an efficient way.
Furthermore, the campaign used direct messaging to emphasize the perils posed by diseases that can be prevented through vaccination and what could happen to our society if too many people opted out of the inoculation process. The materials featured a “before and after” setup that contrasted the realities of a world where people choose to get vaccinated versus a world where they do not. And if you look at it that way, we really are talking about two different realities, because when vaccination rates drop, the chances of a once-defeated disease making a comeback go up.
The campaign took advantage of social norms by enlisting influential community leaders as vaccination advocates. In many Sub-Saharan African cultures, community leaders possess power over what is considered acceptable public behavior. In steps one and two, the community respects the decisions the community leader makes. In step three, the community leader in traditional circumstances displayed his personal choice by either accepting or rejecting poor life decisions, such as not receiving a vaccination. In the local communities, this leader represents the law and order and the acceptance and respect for the decisions made in the community.
The initiative had a deep and meaningful effect. In the first year alone, the vaccination rates in the regions targeted for the campaign increased by a solid 35%. That was a big margin over what had been accomplished in previous years. The increase paid tribute to the effectiveness of the campaign and was a vital step toward the goal of herd immunity. Herd immunity, in turn, was a much-needed line of defense in areas where diseases suppressed by vaccination had long been common.
Furthermore, the push was a success, resulting in a marked decrease in vaccine hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa. The campaign achieved this by identifying and directly targeting the specific behavioral hurdles keeping these groups from benefitting from lifesaving vaccines. The outcome of this concerted, direct-effort approach was a narrowing of the previously mentioned embodiment gap, with gains appearing in vaccination outcomes across much of the demographic spectrum. And those gains appeared to have countered the pockets of historically devastating diseases—like measles, polio, and yellow fever—that have haunted many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa
However, it is important to think about if the ends justify means. Remember, an important part of this plan was the utilizations of community leaders to enforce what is considered to be the social norm of a community. While its great to see the uptick in vaccinations, is it worth interceding in the culture of a community to create artificial norms? I find that to be an interesting ethical dillema.
Regardless, initiative’s success could mean big things for public health worldwide. Its methods could be employed in the countless places that confront our two-faced problem of vaccine hesitancy and access. As the global community continues to live with the reality of contagious and sometimes deadly diseases that can only be quelled by a large-scale “herd” immunity, the good old-fashioned public health practices of the “this is what we’ve learned” and “this is what we’re doing next” variety are going to have to be shared and replicated.
The initiative underscores the rising significance of behavioral economics in public health. It is transforming the field. Coalitions like this one encourage more interdisciplinary work between public health, psychology, and behavioral sciences to identify left-brain and right-brain solutions. As the initiative continues to grow in size and influence, I am excited to see where it takes us and the long term effects it has on Sub-Saharan Africa
Sources:
- World Health Organization. (2024). “Vaccine Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Behavioral Economics Approach.” Retrieved from who.int
- The New York Times. (2024). “How Behavioral Economics Boosted Vaccination in Africa.” NYT Health Section.
cognitivecents.com 
Leave a comment