Communicating prevention: why people decide to get vaccinated… or not
By Gala Conde · Communications Consultant at GAD3
Every autumn, the story repeats itself: posters in health centres announce the start of the flu vaccination campaign, news bulletins remind us who it is aimed at, and healthcare professionals insist that prevention remains our best defence. Yet year after year, the figures reveal something deeper than a simple medical choice: the decision to get vaccinated — or not — says a great deal about how we perceive risk, trust and collective responsibility.
-
From intention to action: a declining trend
Just a few years ago, more than half of the Spanish population said they intended to get vaccinated against flu. Today, that intention has declined to around 43%. A figure that, beyond the number itself, reflects a shift in attitudes.
The main motivation among those who do get vaccinated continues to be caring for themselves and those around them, followed by medical recommendation and a sense of social responsibility. However, only a small minority say they do so because they feel they have sufficient information about the vaccine.
Behind this decline lies a paradox: trust in the vaccine is eroding at the same time as access to information is increasing. In 2022, four in ten people said they got vaccinated because they trusted the vaccine’s effectiveness; by 2024, that figure had fallen to just 27%.
If you are interested in these data, you can find further information in the study carried out by GAD3 for Seqirus.
-
When not getting vaccinated is also a decision
The reasons given by those who choose not to get vaccinated are just as revealing. Most do so because no one has recommended it to them, or because they believe flu is “not particularly serious”. In other words, the lack of medical advice and a low perception of risk combine in an equation that leaves a large part of the population unprotected.
Behind every refusal there may be a personal story: someone who has never experienced a severe bout of flu, someone who trusts their immune system, or someone who believes the vaccine “isn’t necessary every year”. What the data show is that the barrier is not always misinformation, but rather a lack of connection between prevention and personal experience.
-
A campaign facing the challenge of communication
The good news is that more and more Spaniards are receiving information about the vaccination campaign. Even so, the figures remain very low: 73% reported not having received any information about vaccination campaigns in 2024. The challenge, however, does not seem to lie in the quantity of information, but in the way it is delivered and interpreted.
Television, radio and the press remain the main channels, and traditional media continue to lead in terms of informational trust, followed by healthcare professionals and the public health system. Yet amid so many messages, knowledge does not always translate into conviction.
-
Does this sound familiar to you?
And my question at this point is: does this image ring a bell?
Or, this one?
Or maybe this one,
All of these are posters from vaccination campaigns, and every autumn they reappear on bus shelters, in health centres and across social media. Smiling children, grandparents, elderly couples. Clean, bright, friendly images. The message is clear: “Get vaccinated”, “Protect them”, “This season, protect yourself twice over”.
And yet, despite their constant presence, something about these campaigns seems to fall short of fully engaging the public.
-
The aesthetics of care: children and older people as symbols
he images used in vaccination campaigns, like those shown above, tend to focus on the two most vulnerable groups: children and older adults. Visually, they convey tenderness, care and closeness. A smiling child or a grandmother hugging her grandchild represents the simplest and most universal idea of prevention: “getting vaccinated is an act of love”.
But this formula, repeated year after year, runs the risk of becoming disconnected from the everyday reality of the average viewer. Most of the population does not identify with the role of grandparent or child. And when people do not see themselves reflected, they often perceive the message as something “aimed at others”.
The result? Campaigns that feel institutional, but not personal.
Moreover, their rational and paternalistic tone leaves little room for emotion or urgency — something that does occur in campaigns such as those run by the Directorate-General for Traffic (DGT). Here, the narrative is more informative than persuasive, focused on duty (“you must get vaccinated”) rather than on desire or empathy (“this is how you will feel safer, this is how you protect those around you”).
Here is one of the most talked-about DGT campaigns, which illustrates the emotional and urgent factor I mentioned earlier.
In health communication, the message alone is not enough if it fails to evoke an emotional response. The campaigns that work best are those that manage to translate data into experiences, risks into stories, and recommendations into personal motivations.
-
From message to action
If the data show that the intention to get vaccinated is declining and campaigns are failing to generate that emotional impulse, perhaps the time has come to rethink how we communicate prevention. It is not just about informing, but about connecting: making each person feel that the message speaks directly to them, that their decision matters, that getting vaccinated is not a bureaucratic health procedure but an act of care — for themselves and for others.
Because, in the end, the question is not how many times we see a poster, but how many times we recognise ourselves in it. So what needs to happen for vaccination campaigns to stop reminding us of what we should do and start inspiring us to do it? What do these campaigns need to convey in order to become a decisive and informative factor?
