Abstract
Objectives
To characterize MMR vaccine hesitancy in US adults amid the 2025 measles outbreaks, with specific focus on the role of an individual's media habits.
Methods
We conducted an online panel survey in August 2025, with 2970 US-based, English-speaking adults (≥18 yrs). We conducted bivariate analyses with chi-square tests to characterize differences between hesitant and non-hesitant adults. We used logistic regression modeling to identify factors associated with MMR hesitancy.
Results
Overall, 17% (n = 501) of adults believed the risks of MMR outweighed the benefits. Most adults engaged with a wide range of digital media, but engagement with “new" right media outlets (e.g., Breitbart) was associated with increased odds of MMR hesitancy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.64, 2.82). Seeking health information from non-authoritative sources both online (e.g., social media influencers AOR = 1.41; CI = 1.06, 1.98; alternative health newsletters AOR = 1.39; CI = 1.01, 1.90) and offline (e.g., alternative health practitioners AOR = 1.70; CI = 1.31; 2.35) was also associated with increased odds of MMR hesitancy.
Conclusions
In an increasingly fragmented information ecosystem where news coverage of public health events is politically polarized, individual media and health information seeking preferences emerge as key correlates of MMR vaccine hesitancy. Specifically, engagement with “new” right media and seeking health information from alternative healthcare providers were the strongest associated factors with MMR hesitancy, whereas reliance on physicians for health information had the most protective effect.
From the article:
Only engagement with spaces outside of the mainstream, particularly right-leaning “new" media channels, was associated with increased MMR hesitancy; engagement with legacy right outlets (e.g. Fox or New York Post) was not significant. These findings build on prior studies that have highlighted the connection between right-leaning media and vaccine hesitancy [8,36,37]in two critical ways; first, we reinforce findings that “mainstream” media consumption was not generally associated with vaccine hesitancy, and extend this finding beyond media outlets to include more mainstream social media platforms and digital news services; and second, we more narrowly identify the subset of "new" right media sources as having associations with MMR hesitancy. More generally, our findings suggest that when everyone is already engaging online, where and how they choose to do so matters.
We identified more marked differences between hesitant and non-hesitant adults with respect to their health-seeking behavior compared to their general media preferences, aligning with the growing body of literature documenting how health information seeking habits significantly influence vaccine attitudes [20]. In particular, hesitant adults were more likely to utilize internet and social media sources for vaccine information, whereas non-hesitant adults were less likely to engage with the sources we classified as non-authoritative (e.g., alternative health providers, online health influencers, alternative health newsletters), suggesting greater selectivity in their consumption of health information. Alternately, it may suggest that increased hesitancy could drive more health information seeking as individuals seek to address concerns or conflicting evidence. This finding adds complexity to previous work – during previous outbreaks– that have found associations between online health information sources and MMR hesitancy [22,38]. More research is needed to understand the directionality of this relationship vis-a-vis the media landscape: are hesitant adults actively seeking out non-authoritative sources, or are susceptible groups disproportionately being digitally targeted by these sources? Or are non-hesitant adults simply better able to filter out non-authoritative information? Or is the relationship bi-directional, creating a feedback loop in any of the scenarios?
[8] Sturgis P, Brunton-Smith I, Jackson J. Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence. Nat Hum Behav 2021;5:1528–34.
[22] Cataldi JR, Dempsey AF, O’Leary ST. Measles, the media, and MMR: impact of the 2014–15 measles outbreak. Vaccine 2016;34:6375–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2016.10.048.
[36] Borah P, Ghosh S, Hwang J, Shah DV, Brauer M. Red media vs. blue media: social distancing and partisan news media use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Commun 2024;39:417–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2167584.
[37] Baumgaertner B, Carlisle JE, Justwan F. The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate. PloS One 2018;13:e0191728. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0191728.
38] Christianson B, Sharif-Mohamed F, Heath J, Roddy M, Bahta L, Omar H, et al. Parental attitudes and decisions regarding MMR vaccination during an outbreak of measles among an undervaccinated Somali community in Minnesota. Vaccine 2020;38:6979–84.