Working with Large Language Models to Enhance Messaging Effectiveness for Vaccine Confidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09857v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 04:06:46 GMT
• Title: Working with Large Language Models to Enhance Messaging Effectiveness for Vaccine Confidence
• Authors: Lucinda Gullison, Feng Fu,
• Abstract summary: Vaccine hesitancy and misinformation are significant barriers to achieving widespread vaccination coverage.<n>This paper explores the potential of ChatGPT-augmented messaging to promote confidence in vaccination uptake.
• Score: 0.276240219662896
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Vaccine hesitancy and misinformation are significant barriers to achieving widespread vaccination coverage. Smaller public health departments may lack the expertise or resources to craft effective vaccine messaging. This paper explores the potential of ChatGPT-augmented messaging to promote confidence in vaccination uptake. We conducted a survey in which participants chose between pairs of vaccination messages and assessed which was more persuasive and to what extent. In each pair, one message was the original, and the other was augmented by ChatGPT. At the end of the survey, participants were informed that half of the messages had been generated by ChatGPT. They were then asked to provide both quantitative and qualitative responses regarding how knowledge of a message's ChatGPT origin affected their impressions. Overall, ChatGPT-augmented messages were rated slightly higher than the original messages. These messages generally scored better when they were longer. Respondents did not express major concerns about ChatGPT-generated content, nor was there a significant relationship between participants' views on ChatGPT and their message ratings. Notably, there was a correlation between whether a message appeared first or second in a pair and its score. These results point to the potential of ChatGPT to enhance vaccine messaging, suggesting a promising direction for future research on human-AI collaboration in public health communication.

Related papers

• Conversations with AI Chatbots Increase Short-Term Vaccine Intentions But Do Not Outperform Standard Public Health Messaging [5.816741004594914]
  Large language model (LLM) based chatbots show promise in persuasive communication. This randomized controlled trial involved 930 vaccine-hesitant parents. Discussions significantly increased self-reported vaccination intent (by 7.1-10.3 points on a 100-point scale) compared to no message.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T07:59:46Z)
• Accuracy of a Large Language Model in Distinguishing Anti- And Pro-vaccination Messages on Social Media: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination [1.8434042562191815]
  This research assesses the accuracy of ChatGPT for sentiment analysis to discern different stances toward HPV vaccination. Messages related to HPV vaccination were collected from social media supporting different message formats: Facebook (long format) and Twitter (short format) Accuracy was measured for each message as the level of concurrence between human and machine decisions, ranging between 0 and 1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T04:35:54Z)
• The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages: A two-part study [0.0]
  We examined the influence of source disclosure on people's evaluation of AI-generated health prevention messages. We found that source disclosure significantly impacted the evaluation of the messages but did not significantly alter message rankings. For those with moderate levels of negative attitudes towards AI, source disclosure decreased the preference for AI-generated messages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T05:20:47Z)
• Comprehensive Assessment of Toxicity in ChatGPT [49.71090497696024]
  We evaluate the toxicity in ChatGPT by utilizing instruction-tuning datasets. prompts in creative writing tasks can be 2x more likely to elicit toxic responses. Certain deliberately toxic prompts, designed in earlier studies, no longer yield harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:37:53Z)
• Primacy Effect of ChatGPT [69.49920102917598]
  We study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T00:37:28Z)
• Is ChatGPT Involved in Texts? Measure the Polish Ratio to Detect ChatGPT-Generated Text [48.36706154871577]
  We introduce a novel dataset termed HPPT (ChatGPT-polished academic abstracts) It diverges from extant corpora by comprising pairs of human-written and ChatGPT-polished abstracts instead of purely ChatGPT-generated texts. We also propose the "Polish Ratio" method, an innovative measure of the degree of modification made by ChatGPT compared to the original human-written text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T06:38:37Z)
• Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Unlocking the Potential of Large Language Models for AI-Assisted Medical Education [0.0]
  This study determined how reliable ChatGPT can be for answering complex medical and clinical questions. The paper evaluated the obtained results using a 2-way ANOVA and posthoc analysis. ChatGPT-generated answers were found to be more context-oriented than regular Google search results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-30T19:53:23Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT [65.268245109828]
  This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T01:19:01Z)
• On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspective [67.98821225810204]
  We evaluate the robustness of ChatGPT from the adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. Results show consistent advantages on most adversarial and OOD classification and translation tasks. ChatGPT shows astounding performance in understanding dialogue-related texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T11:01:20Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• Characterizing Sociolinguistic Variation in the Competing Vaccination Communities [9.72602429875255]
  "Framing" and "personalization" of the message is one of the key features for devising a persuasive messaging strategy. In the context of health-related misinformation, vaccination remains to be the most prevalent topic of discord. We conduct a sociolinguistic analysis of the two competing vaccination communities on Twitter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T03:05:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.