Major Depressive Symptoms and Endorsement of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Among US Adults | Depressive Disorders | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Association of Major Depressive Symptoms With Endorsement of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Among US Adults

Educational Objective
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  Are major depressive symptoms associated with increased risk of believing common misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines among US adults?

Findings  In this survey study including 15 464 US adults, people with moderate or greater major depressive symptoms on an initial survey were more likely to endorse at least 1 of 4 false statements about COVID-19 vaccines on a subsequent survey, and those who endorsed these statements were half as likely to be vaccinated.

Meaning  These findings suggest another potential benefit of public health efforts to address depressive symptoms, namely reducing susceptibility to misinformation.

Abstract

Importance  Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination may contribute substantially to vaccine hesitancy and resistance.

Objective  To determine if depressive symptoms are associated with greater likelihood of believing vaccine-related misinformation.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This survey study analyzed responses from 2 waves of a 50-state nonprobability internet survey conducted between May and July 2021, in which depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9). Survey respondents were aged 18 and older. Population-reweighted multiple logistic regression was used to examine the association between moderate or greater depressive symptoms and endorsement of at least 1 item of vaccine misinformation, adjusted for sociodemographic features. The association between depressive symptoms in May and June, and new support for misinformation in the following wave was also examined.

Exposures  Depressive symptoms.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The main outcome was endorsing any of 4 common vaccine-related statements of misinformation.

Results  Among 15 464 survey respondents (9834 [63.6%] women and 5630 [36.4%] men; 722 Asian respondents [4.7%], 1494 Black respondents [9.7%], 1015 Hispanic respondents [6.6%], and 11 863 White respondents [76.7%]; mean [SD] age, 47.9 [17.5] years), 4164 respondents (26.9%) identified moderate or greater depressive symptoms on the PHQ-9, and 2964 respondents (19.2%) endorsed at least 1 vaccine-related statement of misinformation. Presence of depression was associated with increased likelihood of endorsing misinformation (crude odds ratio [OR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.09-2.61; adjusted OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.91-2.43). Respondents endorsing at least 1 misinformation item were significantly less likely to be vaccinated (crude OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.36-0.45; adjusted OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.51) and more likely to report vaccine resistance (crude OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.21-2.91; adjusted OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.89-3.13). Among 2809 respondents who answered a subsequent survey in July, presence of depression in the first survey was associated with greater likelihood of endorsing more misinformation compared with the prior survey (crude OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.42-2.75; adjusted OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.14-2.33).

Conclusions and Relevance  This survey study found that individuals with moderate or greater depressive symptoms were more likely to endorse vaccine-related misinformation, cross-sectionally and at a subsequent survey wave. While this study design cannot address causation, the association between depression and spread and impact of misinformation merits further investigation.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: December 2, 2021.

Published: January 21, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45697

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Perlis RH et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Roy H. Perlis, MD, MSc, Massachusetts General Hospital, 185 Cambridge St, Sixth Floor, Boston, MA 02114 (rperlis@mgh.harvard.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Perlis had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Perlis, Lazer, Della Volpe.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Perlis.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Perlis, Santillana.

Obtained funding: Ognyanova, Druckman, Lazer, Baum.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Ognyanova, Lin, Druckman, Lazer, Simonson, Della Volpe.

Supervision: Perlis, Lazer.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Perlis reported receiving personal fees from Burrage Capital, Genomind, RID Ventures, Belle Artificial Intelligence, and Takeda and owning equity in Psy Therapeutics and Belle Artificial Intelligence outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-2029292 and SES-2029792; Drs Baum and Ognyanova), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH116270 and 1R56MH115187; Dr Perlis), and Northeastern University, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and Rutgers University.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: Dr Perlis is an associated editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.

References
1.
Swire-Thompson  B , Lazer  D .  Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations.   Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:433-451. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Loomba  S , de Figueiredo  A , Piatek  SJ , de Graaf  K , Larson  HJ .  Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA.   Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(3):337-348. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Romer  D , Jamieson  KH .  Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.   Soc Sci Med. 2020;263:113356. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Druckman  JN , Ognyanova  K , Baum  MA ,  et al.  The role of race, religion, and partisanship in misperceptions about COVID-19.   Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 2021;24(4):638-657. doi:10.1177/1368430220985912Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Vosoughi  S , Roy  D , Aral  S .  The spread of true and false news online.   Science. 2018;359(6380):1146-1151. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Knobloch-Westerwick  S , Mothes  C , Polavin  N.   Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information.   Commun Res. 2020;47(1):104-124. doi:10.1177/0093650217719596Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Rozin  P , Royzman  EB .  Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion.   Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5(4):296-320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Weeks  BE .  Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation: emotions and misperceptions.   J Commun. 2015;65(4):699-719. doi:10.1111/jcom.12164Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Perlis  RH , Santillana  M , Ognyanova  K ,  et al.  Factors associated with self-reported symptoms of depression among adults with and without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2116612. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16612PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
National Center for Health Statistics. Anxiety and depression: Household Pulse Survey. Accessed December 13, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/mental-health.htm
11.
The COVID States Project. Accessed December 14, 2021. https://covidstates.org/
12.
Kroenke  K , Spitzer  RL .  The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure.   Psychiatr Ann. 2002;32(9):509-515. doi:10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Kube  T , Schwarting  R , Rozenkrantz  L , Glombiewski  JA , Rief  W .  Distorted cognitive processes in major depression: a predictive processing perspective.   Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87(5):388-398. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.07.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Everaert  J , Podina  IR , Koster  EHW .  A comprehensive meta-analysis of interpretation biases in depression.   Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;58:33-48. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Korn  CW , Sharot  T , Walter  H , Heekeren  HR , Dolan  RJ .  Depression is related to an absence of optimistically biased belief updating about future life events.   Psychol Med. 2014;44(3):579-592. doi:10.1017/S0033291713001074PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Castro  VM , Gunning  FM , McCoy  TH , Perlis  RH .  Mood disorders and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalizations.   Am J Psychiatry. 2021;178(6):541-547. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20060842PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Lin  LY , Sidani  JE , Shensa  A ,  et al.  Association between social media use and depression among U.S. young adults.   Depress Anxiety. 2016;33(4):323-331. doi:10.1002/da.22466Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Kross  E , Verduyn  P , Demiralp  E ,  et al.  Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults.   PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e69841. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069841PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Sagioglou  C , Greitemeyer  T.   Facebook’s emotional consequences: why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it.   Comput Human Behav. 2014;35:359-363. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.003Google ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close