3 - (SYM 74) Community-oriented Motivational Interviewing to Address Misinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines in Online Spaces: Leveraging Qualitative Techniques to “read the Room” and Mitigate or Prevent Discord

Background: Community-oriented Motivational Interviewing (COMI) adapts MI to an online community setting (e.g, chatrooms and other online forums) where providers cannot control who joins the exchange and have no authority over the rules that govern dialogue. Our initial qualitative work identified three processes unique to COMI to address negative COVID-19 vaccine sentiment: 1) Navigating tension between commenters and “bystanders”; 2) Activating pro-vaccine bystanders; and 3) Reframing uncertainty or troublesome information according to collective values. This follow-up study was to identify effective provider responses to wello-known manifestations of misinformation including demonstrably false statements, accurate information presented out of context, and narratives that are historically valid but incorrectly applied in the present context.

Methods: Four infodemiologists (n = 4) identifying as members of a priority community (i.e. Black, Latinx, or a recent immigrant) were trained in COMI and supervised weekly. They conducted 295 interventions on Twitter and Facebook in public conversations judged by the infodemiologist to be targeting the community with which they identified between April and October, 2021. 157 interventions received either replies or engagement (e.g. like, retweet). Deidentified transcripts were recorded by the practitioner at the time of the intervention. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively at the level of the utterance plus an overall assessment we termed “reading the room.”

Results: Practitioner techniques included facilitating the correction of inaccurate assumptions through reframing/shifting focus and putting true information in context. They also utilized “common ground” reflections about shared values and collective affirmations. Participants rarely made direct statements in favor of vaccine uptake in response to infodemiologists’ postings; however, the provider’s focus on “reading the room” led participants to (re)consider their stance towards vaccination. This was evidenced by changes in the tone of exchanges.

Conclusion: In addition to techniques previously identified, providers leveraged collective reflections & affirmations and reframing information according to group identity/values as effective ways to mitigate the impact of misinformation and eliciting consideration of behavior change. Analyzing transcripts at different units of analysis gave particular insight into effective ways practitioners could mitigate discord in their digital communities.