Promoting RAPID Vaccine Science Education at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, substantial vaccine hesitancy was observed, particularly among young adults and certain demographic groups, threatening the success of vaccine deployment. The authors posited that deficits in scientific knowledge and literacy, mistrust of the scientific process, and difficulty discerning credible information contributed to hesitancy. Higher education institutions were seen as having both the opportunity and obligation to respond. The project aimed to create and disseminate versatile, accessible educational materials to improve understanding of the scientific process, SARS-CoV-2 biology, vaccine development, and science communication. The hypothesis was that exposure to these materials would increase beliefs in vaccine safety and effectiveness, enhance trust in the scientific processes of vaccine development, and increase the likelihood of students choosing to get vaccinated.

The paper situates vaccine hesitancy within pre-existing global trends. The WHO defines vaccine hesitancy as delayed acceptance or refusal despite availability. Studies cited include surveys highlighting demographic predictors of hesitancy (e.g., female gender, younger age, lower education), the role of misinformation, and evidence that targeted educational interventions across life stages (prenatal to parent-focused campaigns) can improve vaccination knowledge and uptake. Additional literature links scientific and health literacy to vaccine attitudes and behaviors during COVID-19, though some studies report mixed relationships between literacy and acceptance, indicating the complexity of factors influencing vaccine decisions. Overall, prior evidence supports the value of accurate, accessible information and sustained education to counter hesitancy.

The Online Vaccine Science Resources (OVSR) comprised four modules developed for online dissemination with both asynchronous and synchronous components. Asynchronous content included 21 instructional videos (total ≈ 4.25 hours; individual videos 30–95 minutes) hosted on YouTube, with transcripts and slide decks. Synchronous resources included topic reviews, assessments, discussion/reflection prompts, and synthesis activities (infographics, case studies, dual-audience posters). Modules covered: 1) the process of science; 2) COVID-19 science (SARS-CoV-2 structure, replication, PCR and antigen testing); 3) vaccine science (immunity, development, trials, history of antivaccination, disparities); and 4) vaccine communication (mis/disinformation, hesitancy, communication strategies). Materials were produced in Summer–Fall 2020, piloted in a freshman biology majors course (~65 students) at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, refined with feedback from undergraduates and community partners, and disseminated in Spring 2021. Field testing and dissemination used a QUBES Faculty Mentoring Network (FMN) in Spring 2021 with 16 faculty across institutions who adopted at least two modules. Faculty evaluations used a 7-point Likert survey focused on usability and perceived value. Student perception surveys (administered pre- and post-instruction via course LMS links) used three 7-point Likert items: (1) vaccines are safe/effective; (2) trust in scientific processes used in vaccine development; (3) likelihood of getting a free COVID-19 vaccine. Surveys were anonymous and unpaired to avoid IRB complications across institutions. Additional course-based content assessments were conducted: - Fall 2022, nonmajors course (Molecules of Life), module 2 video: pretest (n=106) and posttest (n=108) with six multiple-choice questions aligned to learning objectives (2a–2d); analysis via two-tailed unpaired t-tests in Excel. - Spring 2023, nonmajors course (Human Biology), module 3 video: pretest (n=52) and posttest (n=51) with seven multiple-choice items aligned to objectives (3a–3c); within-day testing with randomized answer order. Safety/IRB: No safety issues; study activities were IRB-exempt at Santa Clara University and approved at WPI.

- Faculty FMN survey (n=6): High agreement with statements (7-point scale): toolkits valuable (6.67), factually correct (6.67), thought-provoking (6.33), easy to use (6.67), students engaged (6.00), plan future use (6.60), would encourage colleagues (6.83). - Student perception surveys (unpaired pre/post across courses using modules): Statistically significant increases were observed in all three areas: belief that vaccines are safe and effective, trust in scientific processes for vaccine development, and likelihood of getting a free COVID-19 vaccine, with the largest gain in vaccination likelihood. Disaggregated results: • Gender: Women showed significant increases on all three items; men’s responses increased but sample sizes were too small for firm conclusions. • Age: No age group showed significant change for the “safe/effective” item; significant gains for trust and likelihood were observed among 18–22-year-olds. • Race/ethnicity: Hispanic students showed significant increases for trust and likelihood; African American students for safety/effectiveness; Asian students for trust. Combined non-white students showed large gains across all three items, while white students showed gains mainly for trust. - Content learning, Module 2 video (Fall 2022, nonmajors; pre n=106, post n=108): • Item-level accuracy increases (pre→post; significance): Q1: virus type (0.972→0.982; ns), Q2: genome molecule (0.877→0.982; P<0.01), Q3: viral attachment part (0.566→0.880; P<0.001), Q4: human receptor used (0.406→0.778; P<0.001), Q5: test detecting viral genes (0.717→0.870; P<0.01), Q6: antigen test detects which molecule (0.491→0.861; P<0.001). • Total score increased from 4.028±1.150 to 5.352±0.950 (Δ=1.324; P<0.001). - Content learning, Module 3 video (Spring 2023, nonmajors; pre n=52, post n=51): • Q1: modern vaccines (42%→76% correct). • Q2: vaccination promotes adaptive immunity (83%→84%; stable high). • Q3: main benefit to individual health (85%→94%). • Q4: lipid nanoparticles imply nucleic acid vaccine (56%→76%). • Q5: questions on dosing/effectiveness addressed in Phase III trials (33%→65%). • Q6: correct immunity statement (56%→76%). • Q7: rationale for multiple vaccinations/boosters decreased (63%→57%), indicating a misconception persisting post-instruction.

Findings support the central hypothesis that targeted, modular science education improves vaccine-related knowledge, trust in scientific processes, and self-reported likelihood of vaccination. Statistically significant gains across perception items and robust improvements in content knowledge (especially on SARS-CoV-2 mechanisms and vaccine science) indicate that the curriculum effectively addresses common knowledge gaps fueling hesitancy. Disaggregated analyses suggest the materials may be particularly impactful among women, younger students (18–22), and non-white students, which aligns with equity goals in public health education. Nevertheless, some misconceptions persisted (e.g., rationale for multiple vaccinations/boosters), underscoring the need for iterative reinforcement, comprehensive module use, and formative assessment throughout a course. The results highlight the broader significance of integrating scientific literacy and communication training into curricula to counter misinformation and support public health interventions during ongoing and future health crises.

The project developed and disseminated comprehensive, modular educational resources on the process of science, COVID-19, vaccine science, and science communication, suitable for diverse instructional contexts. Implementation across multiple institutions demonstrated increased student trust in vaccines and scientific processes, higher self-reported vaccination intentions, and measurable gains in content knowledge. The materials remain relevant as COVID-19 science evolves; updates have been made (e.g., variants content), and resources are designed for easy modification. Future work should include larger, paired and longitudinal studies, broader institutional adoption, targeted interventions to address persistent misconceptions (e.g., booster rationales), adaptation and translation for diverse communities, and evaluation of downstream behavioral outcomes such as verified vaccination uptake.

- Student surveys were unpaired and anonymous across institutions, preventing within-subject change analysis. - Low response rate for faculty survey (n=6 of 16) limits generalizability. - Some subgroup analyses (e.g., by gender, race) had small Ns, especially for men and certain racial groups. - External factors (e.g., contemporaneous media, policy changes, evolving pandemic context) may have influenced perceptions independent of the curriculum. - Content assessment for Module 3 showed a post-instruction decrease on one item (boosters), indicating remaining misconceptions and the need for reinforcement. - Single-course contexts for content assessments (nonmajors) may limit generalizability to other populations or advanced courses.