Where people get their news influences their beliefs about vaccines
New survey finds significant link between ‘new right’ outlets and vaccine hesitancy
People who follow “new right” media outlets are more than twice as likely to be vaccine-hesitant compared to those who never engage with those outlets, a new Johns Hopkins University study finds.
Researchers surveyed nearly 3,000 adults in 2025, as measles cases hit record highs in the United States, asking participants about their sources for news and health information and how they felt about the measles-mumps-rubella, or MMR, vaccine. The findings revealed how specific media habits are strongly associated with attitudes toward vaccines.
The study found:
- People who regularly engaged with “new right” media outlets, meaning digital news outlets with a strong conservative political bias including Breitbart, Newsmax and Zero Hedge, were more than twice as likely to be vaccine hesitant.
- Hesitant adults were more likely to rely on non-authoritative sources for health information, like alternative health providers, social media health influencers and alternative health newsletters, such as Children’s Health Defense.
“Our work reveals a strong association between people’s specific media habits and their attitudes towards vaccination,” said author Lauren Gardner, director of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Systems Science and Engineering and an expert in using data and modeling to better understand disease risk. “Our findings suggest that when everyone is already engaging online, where and how they choose to do so matters.”
The study is newly published in the journal Vaccine.
In 2025, more than 2,000 measles cases across 43 states were reported in the United States, the most cases since the highly infectious disease was declared eradicated in 2000. Almost all the cases occurred in unvaccinated people.
Measles cases continue to rise this year.
The outbreak follows a steady drop in childhood vaccination rates, including the MMR vaccine, across the country since the COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage among school children hovers at 93%—below the 95% herd immunity threshold needed to predict or limit the spread of measles.
Previous research has demonstrated that adults who rely on less authoritative health information sources for vaccine information, such as internet news and social media, were more hesitant about vaccinating their own children. But less was known about how people’s general news habits might tie into their vaccination beliefs.
Gardner’s team surveyed 2,970 adults last August. While most Americans, 83%, reported the MMR vaccine benefits outweighed the risks, roughly 1 in 6 respondents reporting feeling hesitant about the vaccine.
Hesitant adults were significantly younger, with 62% under age 44, and more likely to be parents. They were more likely to be racial minorities, lower-income, and less educated. They expressed more conservative political beliefs and were more likely to identify with the Republican party, 39%, or as an Independent, 33%. Hesitant adults were also more likely to identify with the Make America Healthy Again movement, or MAHA, 43%, than non-hesitant adults, 27%.
Most participants, 87%, reported following the news, with no significant differences between hesitant and non-hesitant adults. Almost everyone said they were online at least daily and almost everyone engaged with a variety of news sources.
The greatest difference between the news and information habits of vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant participants was what researchers called the “selective media engagement” of non-hesitant individuals.
While almost everyone surveyed said they were online at least daily and almost everyone consumed content across multiple mediums, outlets and platforms, non-hesitant adults were less likely to engage with right-leaning “new media” channels, and significantly less likely to obtain information from non-authoritative sources such as alternative health providers, online health influencers, alternative health newsletters.
The findings suggest that reliance on physicians for health information emerged as a strong protective effect against vaccine hesitancy and that to improve vaccination rates, health communicators must address how and where Americans find information about vaccines.
“With public health becoming increasingly polarized, it’s critical to understand people’s attitudes about vaccines, and this work suggest people’s media preferences play an outsized role in influencing those attitudes.” said co-first author Amelia Jamison, an assistant research scientist at Johns Hopkins, who studies health communication.
Johns Hopkins PhD student Samee Saiyed is the other co-first author.
Journal
Vaccine
Scientists esteemed by public, with vaccine scientists seen as similar to scientists in general
7 in 10 trust scientists to work in best interests of “people like you.”
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
image:
Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Survey Feb. 2026, N=1650, MOE=+/-3.5%
view moreCredit: Annenberg Public Policy Center
Vaccines and scientists who work on them have been embroiled in controversy and subject to unfounded attacks over the past half-dozen years. The litany of attacks has included both debunked claims and claims that lack evidence – for instance, that vaccines using mRNA technology such as Covid-19 vaccines alter people’s DNA (no evidence), that some vaccines contain tracking microchips (false), that vaccines cause autism (no evidence), and that scientists working on childhood vaccines are motivated by profit (no evidence).
Despite these repeated attacks, a nationally representative survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania finds that the American public continues to see scientists working on vaccines in fundamentally similar ways to medical scientists and scientists in general.
The Annenberg survey, conducted Feb. 3-17, 2026, among 1,650 U.S. adults, finds that nearly 7 in 10 people (69%) say they trust vaccine scientists a moderate or greater amount to act in the best interests of “people like you.” This finding is statistically no different than the percentage who have moderate or more trust in medical scientists (72%) and scientists in general (70%).
The level of trust (moderate or higher) in scientists is comparable to the levels found in earlier Annenberg surveys for trust in police officers (70%) and the military (70%) and is considerably higher than trust in journalists (49%), religious leaders (47%), elected officials (36%) and business leaders (30%).
See the topline for question wording.
Evaluating scientists through FASS
In addition to fielding overall questions on trust, Annenberg Public Policy Center research has developed a five-factor tool to measure the public’s perception of science and scientists: whether scientists are perceived to be credible and prudent; whether they are perceived to correct errors (self-correcting) and overcome individual bias; and whether the scientific findings produced by these scientists have benefited “people like me” and “the country as a whole” (beneficial). The study “Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science,” published in 2023 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, first explored the five factors, or FASS.
Public perceptions of different kinds of scientists vary – indeed, past APPC research has shown that the public perceives climate scientists and scientists working on artificial intelligence less favorably than scientists in general on some of these factors.
Despite the sustained, unwarranted attacks on vaccines and the scientists working on them, the current survey shows that the U.S. public continues to perceive vaccine scientists as either comparable to or more favorable than scientists in general. The current survey finds that vaccine scientists are regarded as being just as credible, self-correcting, and unbiased, and their work as beneficial, as scientists in general. The one statistically significant difference favors vaccine scientists as being even more prudent than scientists in general.
“It is reassuring to see that the public trusts vaccine scientists to act in their best interests just as much as scientists in general, despite the unfounded attacks on vaccine research,” said APPC research analyst Laura A. Gibson.
Equal levels of trust in different types of scientists
The Annenberg survey asks respondents how much they trust a) scientists working on vaccines, b) medical scientists, and c) scientists to act “in the best interest of people like you” on a scale from (1) “not at all” to (5) “a great deal.” On average, people report having “a moderate amount” of trust (3) in all three groups of scientists. A statistical regression comparing the mean or average scores shows that the mean for vaccine scientists is 3.1, which is statistically no different than for medical scientists (3.1) or scientists in general (3.0).
- Scientists working on vaccines: Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) say they trust vaccine scientists a moderate amount or more to act in their best interest, including 38% who say they trust vaccine scientists a great deal or a lot to act in their best interest and 31% who say they trust this group of scientists a moderate amount. About 1 in 3 (31%) say they trust them a little or not at all.
- Medical scientists: 72% say they trust medical scientists a moderate amount or more to act in their best interest, including 37% who say they trust medical scientists a great deal or a lot and 35% who say they trust this group of scientists a moderate amount. Less than 1 in 3 (28%) say they trust them a little or not at all.
- Scientists in general: 70% say they trust scientists a moderate amount or more to act in their best interest, including 32% who say they trust scientists in general a great deal or a lot to act in their best interest and 38% who say they trust this group of scientists a moderate amount. About 1 in 3 (30%) say they trust them a little or not at all.
Trusting scientists to report funding sources honestly
In addition, when asking about vaccine scientists and medical scientists, the public trusts them equally to be honest about their funding sources. Over half say they trust vaccine scientists (55%) and medical scientists (57%) “some” or “a lot” to be open and honest about who is paying for their work. (The survey did not ask about scientists in general.)
How often scientists’ biases affect their work
The U.S. public perceives that the biases of scientists who work on vaccines, medical scientists, and scientists in general affect their work equally often. APPC researchers measured perceptions of bias with the question, “How often do the human and political biases of each of the following groups affect their work?” This question also uses a five-point scale, in which (1) is “rarely” and (5) is “often.” Again, a regression analysis shows that the mean score for vaccine scientists is not statistically different from the mean score for medical scientists or scientists in general – it is in the middle, 3.0, for all three groups.
Being prudent & other factors assessing scientists
A series of 13 questions were used to determine the five factors in how people assess scientists – whether the public views them as credible and prudent, and whether they correct their errors (self-correcting) and work to overcome their biases. Survey respondents were also asked to consider whether the science produced by scientists benefits people like them and society in general (beneficial). Half of the survey sample was asked to assess vaccine scientists, and the other half was asked to assess scientists in general. (See the topline for the questions and data.)
As mentioned above, on four of the five factors vaccine scientists and their work are seen as being just as beneficial, credible, self-correcting, and unbiased as scientists in general. Public perceptions of both groups are the most favorable on the beneficial and credible factors and slightly less so for the self-correcting and unbiased factors, though perceptions of favorability on all four of these factors stand above the midpoint of the scale.
Perceptions of being prudent are the least favorable of the five factors. Also, only perceptions of being prudent show a significant difference favoring vaccine scientists over scientists in general. Perceptions of vaccine scientists’ prudence are no different from the midpoint of the scale, while perceptions of the prudence of scientists in general are in the unfavorable direction.
The prudent factor includes three survey questions: whether respondents agree or disagree that [vaccine scientists/scientists] 1) feel superior to others; 2) create unintended consequences and replace older problems with new ones; and 3) do whatever it takes to get grants and publish, even if that means cutting corners. Unlike with the other scales, lower scores (i.e., disagreement) on these items indicate that respondents think these scientists show a higher level of prudence.
Vaccine scientists are seen as slightly more prudent than scientists in general, with the public disagreeing more with several assertions about vaccine scientists. A quarter of respondents (24%) disagree that vaccine scientists feel superior to others, compared with 16% for scientists in general. Nearly a third of respondents (30%) disagree that science by vaccine scientists creates unintended consequences and replaces older problems with new ones, compared with 23% for scientists in general. A third (33%) disagree that vaccine scientists do whatever it takes to get grants and publish, even if it means cutting corners, compared with 26% for scientists, in general. All differences are statistically significant.
“Scientists need to ask why they are perceived as lower on prudence relative to the other factors of trust in science and scientists,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute and a coauthor of the original article on FASS.
APPC’s ASAPH survey
Wave 28 of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) panel survey was conducted Feb. 3-17, 2026, among 1,650 U.S. adults. Data were collected by SSRS, an independent research company, via web and telephone using a nationally representative probability sample from SSRS’s Opinion Panel. The margin of error is ± 3.5 percentage points. The panelists are quarantined from other survey panel membership to avoid response bias from other surveys. The ASAPH panel has been fielded continuously since April 2021 across 28 waves.
Download the topline and methodology report.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey and separate national samples since April 2021. The ASAPH survey is conducted under the auspices of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute (AHRCI) by a team that includes Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, research analyst Laura A. Gibson, and Patrick E. Jamieson, director of AHRCI.
See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:
- Alcohol and cancer: Awareness of alcohol-cancer link holds steady despite omission in new U.S. dietary guidelines (March 19, 2026)
- Trust in health leaders: Stark divide: Americans more confident in career scientists at U.S. health agencies than leaders (March 5, 2026)
- RSV: Most would recommend RSV immunizations for infants, older adults, and during pregnancy (Jan. 21, 2026)
- Shared decision-making: CDC urges “shared decision-making” on some childhood vaccines; many unclear about what that means (Jan. 5, 2026)
- MMR vaccine: As measles cases rise, views of MMR vaccine safety and effectiveness and willingness to recommend it drop (Dec. 22, 2025)
The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Survey Feb. 2026, N=1650, MOE=+/-3.5%
Survey
Subject of Research
People
The cost of delaying childhood vaccination
Cornell University
ITHACA, N.Y. – Delaying hepatitis B vaccination after birth increases infections among newborns and decreases their survival rates and quality of life, according to a new Cornell University study.
The paper, “Economic evaluation of delaying the infant hepatitis B vaccination schedule,” is under embargo until 11am EST on April 27, 2026 in JAMA Pediatrics.
The longer the delay, the study found, the higher the cost in human life and health care, with costs ranging from $16 million to $370 million depending on the age at first vaccination and adherence to vaccination schedules.
Chronic hepatitis B is a leading cause of cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer and death, affecting 2.4 million people in the United States. Newborns have the highest risk: 90% of newborns who contract hepatitis B virus (HBV) will develop chronic infections and 25% will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.
“Preventing HBV transmission at birth is a cornerstone of hepatitis B elimination efforts,” said Noele Nelson, professor of practice in the Department of Public and Ecosystem Health, the senior author of the study.
In December 2025, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to delay the first dose of HBV vaccine for infants whose birth parent tests negative for the virus – a reversal of a 2018 recommendation to administer the vaccine to all infants within 24 hours of birth.
In this study, Nelson and her team used probabilistic models built on published scientific data about hepatitis B vaccine efficacy, transmission rates and disease progression to estimate the number of infections and health care costs various vaccine scenarios would incur.
Nelson compared models where vaccination is given at birth or delayed to age 2 months, 7 months, 4 years or 12 years, in children of HBV-negative birth parents, unknown birth parent infection status or both. Their models also consider cases where all children received all three recommended doses, or incomplete vaccination.
All projections showed that, in unvaccinated groups, more individuals progressed to chronic infection or serious complications like cirrhosis and liver cancer. This effect was amplified in scenarios where children do not receive all three doses as prescribed.
“Importantly, our study underestimates the costs and health outcomes associated with delays to administering the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose,” Nelson said. “Our model assumptions were conservative. For example, we didn’t include the increasing risk of getting HBV infection from members of their household or community, which could happen if the number of people with HBV infection increases.”
The latest ACIP recommendation was, in part, based on low HBV infections. Nelson argues that the low incidence of HBV infection in the United States is a direct result of the successful vaccination programs.
“Multiple studies have shown that the later children receive their first hepatitis B vaccination, the lower the probability they will complete their routine vaccination course,” Nelson said. “This policy may reverse this progress towards hepatitis B elimination.”
The recent ACIP decision also cited concerns about the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine and speculation that harms might outweigh the benefits of vaccination. Reviewing four decades of studies, including recent comprehensive safety reviews, Nelson did not find any evidence of serious adverse reactions such as seizures, other neurological disorders, infections or mortality.
“We found that over 35 years of data demonstrate long-term immunogenicity and likely lifetime protection from hepatitis B vaccines,” Nelson said. “We don’t find any advantage in delaying the first dose of this vaccine, and our findings favor maintaining a policy of universal hepatitis B vaccination at birth.”
Additional authors include Eric W. Hall of Oregon Health & Science University; Prabhu Gounder of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; and Heather Bradley of Emory University.
-30-
Journal
JAMA Pediatrics
Article Title
Economic Impact of Delaying the Infant Hepatitis B Vaccination Schedule
Article Publication Date
27-Apr-2026
Impact of removing the universal hepatitis B birth-dose vaccination in the US
JAMA Pediatrics
About The Study:
This study estimated the impact of replacing universal hepatitis B virus (HBV) birth-dose vaccination with a targeted recommendation on neonatal and subsequent chronic HBV infections in the U.S. The findings indicate that the targeted birth-dose vaccine recommendation will likely increase neonatal infections unless maternal screening rises substantially or vaccination coverage among infants of unscreened mothers exceeds current levels. As historic data show such improvements are unlikely, these findings underscore the continued importance of universal screening and vaccination as complementary safeguards.
Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Margaret L. Lind, PhD, email mllind@bu.edu.
To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/
(doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.1226)
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article
Journal
JAMA Pediatrics
New study suggests reduced newborn hepatitis B vaccination coverage may increase infant infections
Researchers at Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Public Health ound that lower vaccination coverage among infants born to unscreened mothers was associated with a substantial increase in HBV infections.
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection acquired at birth or during early infancy can lead to lifelong health complications, including chronic liver disease. Despite longstanding recommendations for prenatal screening, an estimated 12% to 16% of pregnant individuals in the U.S. are not screened for hepatitis B. This gap leaves a portion of newborns at risk for undetected exposure. Vaccination at birth serves as a safeguard, particularly for infants born to mothers whose hepatitis B status is unknown.
Researchers at Boston Medical Center (BMC) and Boston University (BU) School of Public Health used simulation modeling to examine how different levels of newborn vaccination coverage and maternal screening influence HBV infection rates in infants across the US. The findings, published in JAMA Pediatrics, compared outcomes under varying real-world conditions to better understand how screening and vaccination work together to prevent transmission.
The study found that lower vaccination coverage among infants born to unscreened mothers was associated with a substantial increase in HBV infections. When vaccination coverage in this group was estimated at 10%, based on historical coverage during a brief pause in the birth dose vaccination recommendation in 1999, the model projected more than 1,000 additional infections. When coverage increased to 80%, consistent with current levels under universal birth dose vaccination, the projected increase dropped to just over 100 additional infections, representing a tenfold reduction.
“Our modeling shows how sensitive hepatitis B prevention is to changes in vaccination coverage at birth,” says Margaret Lind, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at BU School of Public Health. “Even under optimistic assumptions, lower coverage among higher-risk groups leads to increased infections, reinforcing the importance of maintaining high uptake to protect infants.”
Researchers also found that very high levels of maternal screening would be required to offset the increase in infections associated with lower vaccination coverage. The model estimated that screening rates would need to reach approximately 98% to maintain similar levels of protection, a level that has not been achieved nationally in practice.
“Even small drops in birth dose vaccination can increase HBV infection risk, especially for infants of unscreened mothers,” says Rachel Epstein, MD, MSCE, pediatric and adult infectious disease clinician-scientist at BMC and assistant professor of medicine at BU Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine. “This study highlights the importance of consistent prevention strategies to protect newborns and reduce hepatitis B nationwide.”
Journal
JAMA Pediatrics
Article Title
Impact of Removing the Universal Hepatitis B Birth-Dose Vaccination in the US
Article Publication Date
27-Apr-2026
Economic impact of delaying the infant hepatitis B vaccination schedule
JAMA Pediatrics
About The Study:
The results of this economic evaluation quantified the potential impact of changing Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Even brief delays in hepatitis B vaccine initiation were associated with a substantial increase in hepatitis B virus infections, adverse health outcomes, and health care costs.
Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Eric W. Hall, PhD, MPH, email halleri@ohsu.edu.
To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/
(doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.1221)
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article
Journal
JAMA Pediatrics
