CS – Carina Serianni

MS – Mahveen Salman

MC – Melissa Chong

 

[Introduction Music Plays]

 

ALL: Welcome to Perception Check!

​

CS: Where we discuss various topics of misinformation, and how they affect public perception on various health issues.

 

MS: Hi, I am Mahveen and I will be talking about my research on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst pregnant women and the factors that contribute towards this hesitancy and how we can combat this and come up with optimal solutions.

 

CS: Hi, my name is Carina. I'm going to be talking about how autism spectrum disorder is seen in female patients and how misinformation about how it is presented impacts diagnosis rates.

 

MC: Hi, I'm Melissa and I'm going to be talking about inadequate practices people have surrounding sun safety and the misinformation around UVR exposure in general, even though people think they are informed.

 

CS: All of our topics are going to be talking about how misinformation in general, whether that be from faulty science or just not having any knowledge, and how that impacts the public societal perceptions of these topics. Misinformation is a very dangerous thing, and having a misinformed general public can lead to various issues in our society, including those that we are going to be talking about today. We're gonna go one person at a time. Each person is going to talk about their topic and the other two people are going to be giving questions. We hope you enjoy our podcast and keep listening for more great stuff.

 

[Transition Music Plays]

 

MC: We have Mahveen and she's going to be talking about her topic which is COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant mothers.

 

MS: Hi again. So just picture this. Imagine being in the shoes of a pregnant woman during a pandemic. Talk about a wild ride, right? From the get-go COVID-19 threw pregnant women for a loop. With little information available initially about how it affects them and their babies, it's like - imagine being on a roller coaster with uncertain twists and turns. So, it's no wonder some pregnant women are hesitant about the vaccine, right? Now, to understand the vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women, we have to picture this. Vaccines, the superheroes, or the MVPs of disease prevention, right? Yet, some pregnant women are like, “Hmm, maybe not”. According to the research, this might be due to several reasons. These reasons range from fake news on social media platforms to mistrust of pregnant women in the healthcare systems. Now, history also plays a role in this specific COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Events such as the Cutter incident in 1955, where live polio virus was present in the polio vaccine, which was administered to 250 patients, resulted in paralysis of the patients who received the vaccine. Therefore, resistance towards the adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine among individuals who face elevated susceptibility from the side effects of the vaccine, for example, pregnant women in our case, is inevitable. Alright, let's dive into the nitty-gritty. Our mission: figure out why some expectant mothers are giving vaccines the side eye. So I analysed trends from all corners of the globe to have a better picture of the vaccine acceptance rates among pregnant women. Vaccination of pregnant women is very important because the infection can significantly increase the chances of disease or injuries to the mothers and the foetus, for example, myocardial infarctions, which is a heart attack that occurs when the blood flow to a heart muscle is blocked. Also, the risks of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 is greater in pregnant women. As compared to non-pregnant women, this is because they do not fare well to respiratory diseases as the womb gets bigger. It makes it hard for the respiratory system to work efficiently. Since the COVID-19 virus directly affects the respiratory system of the body, it poses a great challenge to the well-being of pregnant women. From this data, we can conclude that pregnant women who do not get vaccinated during their pregnancy place a disproportionate burden on healthcare facilities. However, more research needs to be done to accurately determine this correlation but this can be said considering all of the data that I researched upon. So from my research, the key findings and trends were a little more focused on misinformation which is the villain here spreading rumours scarier than a haunted house but it's not all doom and gloom. Acceptance rates vary like fashion trends influenced by where you live and your life story. It's like a choose-your-own-adventure book but with vaccines. They also do depend on your experience with the healthcare providers. A general trend that I think I found in my research was of lower acceptance rates of the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant women who resided in lower-income countries, were unemployed and had acquired education for a smaller number of years. Another intriguing trend of higher COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was observed in pregnant women who had previously given birth and a lower acceptance rate among women who were pregnant for the first time. From this result and finding it can be interpreted that prior childbirth experience may play a role in the perception of vaccines efficacy and safety among expectant mothers. Now all of this research and findings have implications and recommendations. So combating this hesitancy is a pretty difficult task because if anything has direct implications on the foetus or the baby of the pregnant women they are obviously going to be skeptical about it. The research found that this hesitancy is fueled mainly by misinformation on the internet. An example of this is the rumour that went viral about the vaccines probable role in causing autism in the foetus. Many people also believed that vaccines cause miscarriages. While there is no scientific evidence that supports these findings, the majority of people still believe it. In my personal opinion, a great way to combat this hesitancy would be to record the journey of pregnant women from the point of getting the vaccine to the point of childbirth. This can help to regain the lost trust in healthcare systems and show other women that getting vaccinated during pregnancy is not necessarily harmful or such a bad thing as the media presents it to be. Another helpful strategy would be to hire volunteers who got vaccinated when they were pregnant and delivered healthy babies. Then we could ask these volunteers to have a chat or answer any questions that pregnant women might have about the side effects of the vaccine. This will help to mitigate any potential biases from the healthcare providers as some individuals might suspect that vaccine companies have influenced them to talk about its benefits. And when you talk to someone who has been through the same journey as you, you find it to be more relatable and you trust that information more. For future directions and considerations, as we look ahead, we're dialling up the charm with personalised approaches and a sprinkle of social media magic. Together, we'll turn vaccine hesitancy into a thing of the past and a distant memory, hopefully. So there you have it folks, by banding together and keeping the conversation light and lively, we'll navigate this pandemic with a smile. Thank you.

 

MC: So now that Mahveen is done telling us about her research, we have a few questions for her. So Mahveen, you found that pregnant women that had previously given birth have a higher vaccine acceptance compared to women who are pregnant for the first time. Do you think that the previous experiences of figuring out what to believe during pregnancy play a difference in the way that they're less likely to believe in false information or they just believe less about vaccines causing certain things because they have seen so much when they were first pregnant?

 

MS: Yes, that's a great question. And absolutely, because it's like you can read and research as much as you want, but you're not going to, you know, really prepare yourself for that until you actually experience the situation itself. And, um, now that being said, yes, some useful information can help, but going through pregnancy is such a big step in a woman's life. And it's like your whole body is being transformed. So obviously you're going to be concerned about what you're Putting into your body and what their effects are going to be to your foetus or the baby and Yeah to answer your question more specifically Yes Going through pregnancy can reduce a woman's chance of believing false information Because she's more aware and knowledgeable about the entire situation and she knows What to believe in and what not to believe in and that can like help  Mitigate the effects of misinformation and it's a big deal Effect of reducing or of increasing vaccine hesitancy in pregnant women.

 

MC: Yeah exactly. Okay and then I have another question for you. For people with vaccine hesitancy, specifically pregnant women, do you think that part of this is from like the anxious feelings that's correlated with pregnancy or just stronger emotions a lot of women experience during pregnancy just from hormonal changes from their body? And then it's like in ways that they're more inclined to not get vaccines because they saw this one small post saying that vaccines are harmful to the average person but even more to them.

 

MS: Yeah, it's interesting how you mentioned this question. Now, there might be a correlation between the moods or emotions that pregnant women experience due to the hormonal, uh, changes that are taking place in their bodies. However, there is no specific evidence that suggests experiencing heightened emotions during pregnancy can make a pregnant woman feel better and less skeptical about the vaccine and its side effects. But then again, there is very limited research on this topic and the research related to pregnant women's vaccine hesitancy because even COVID-19 is not like a thing of like a very like past because it's like it will emerge in 2020. So we don't have a lot of data that is related to pregnant women. But, uh, so yeah, more research is needed to testify this correlation.

 

CS: I have a question for you now, Mahveen. So in your report, you talked about vaccine hesitancy in mothers specifically due to the misinformation about how vaccines cause autism, obviously, you know, with my talk, I was very related to that. Yeah, that was a study done by Andrew Wakefield who is no longer a doctor because his research was falsified, and even though the study was conducted over 25 years ago and has literally been proven false time and time and time and time again, it continues to cause doubt and negative public perception about vaccines and mothers and people continue to believe that that is true. So how do you feel like this issue of public perception can be addressed specifically for this topic, since the misinformation that kind of has continued to stay in society and has not gone away?

 

MS: Yeah, so I'm glad that you mentioned this. Now, even though there is no evidence that suggests that vaccines cause autism, as you have all researched upon, however, from the perspective of pregnant women, even if there is like a 0.1% chance that vaccines can cause autism to their babies, they are going to be skeptical about it because obviously they don't want their babies to suffer from that. So you can't help it, but there is hope. As I talked about in my research, uh, personal narratives can be super useful in shaping, um, public perception. A part of the reason is that people can relate to people who have gone through the same thing that they are going through. So even if you're like taking medical advice from a physician, you might not be able to relate to that advice or that medical physician as much as you would to another pregnant woman who has been through the pregnancy and has delivered a healthy baby, right? So to improve their perception about vaccines, we need more people to talk about the advantages of vaccines because, you know, even on the internet, they're like, There are like so many articles about the propaganda of vaccines and how they're causing you like so many medical conditions, but I feel like there's not much data that suggests or talks about the benefits of the vaccine itself and that, um, so people can see that vaccines are actually for their own personal good and benefit and by getting vaccinated, they can actually play their individual part in helping to attain herd immunity as a society.

 

CS: Okay, yeah, that totally makes sense. You kind of almost always see the negative and never the positive. So just a quick follow-up. Why do you think that this is such an issue, especially with vaccine hesitancy because of autism specifically? It's been proven false. So many times, but why do you think that it's you know, still sticking around?

 

MS:I think a part of the reason I'm not like very well versed about this topic specifically, but I think a part of the reason for this, like sticking around might be that not everyone knows that it is falsified because like, you know, like as rumours spread, even though half of the population are like, do become aware that they're not actually true, but like even 25 percent of the people who are not aware that it's actually false might believe it. So we need. I think for our approach or initiative, we need to target that population who is not aware that it's actually false. Rather than making people who are already aware that it's, that it's, that this information is false, we need to target that community who is not aware that it's, that vaccines actually do not cause autism.

 

CS: Yeah, no, that's totally fair. There's definitely, like, a small, it's a small group, but it's a very vocal group, and if you can tackle that group, hopefully, eh, you know, this false information can go away. Yeah, because this misinformation is, it's dangerous, and it needs to be stopped.

 

MC: Just kind of adding on, I think the idea of not presenting stuff on the positive side is very impactful in general. I know that people started drinking unpasteurized milk again. I don’t know why.

 

CS: I saw that!

 

MC: We pasteurized milk for a reason! [MC laughs] It's like maybe like on a normal day-to-day basis, we wouldn't see like okay pasteurized milk is good because of this right, but then you'd see that unpasteurized milk is bad because of this, but they don't see why pasteurized milk is good. So people would turn to unpasteurized milk now. So I think we can apply that sort of concept onto vaccines as well. We know vaccines prevent stuff, that's like the general baseline knowledge that everyone kind of assumes. But like, people just know that, they don't know anything beyond that, but they're like looking at negatives, oh like, oh my god, it causes autism, it doesn't, but like, they think it does. So I think it's the lack of positive information and ways to present it that we need in society to really know what, like, what is good for us and what's not. Absolutely, yeah, because it's like,

 

CS: Yeah, it's the doom and gloom people aren't gonna want to do something if all they hear is the negatives. Yeah. If there are positives, but they have like literally like, you know, no evidence or not evidence, sorry. Like if they don't have like, you know, Oh, this is great because of this and this and this, and then they see like examples of it in their life.  They're just going to see the negatives and be like, ah, no, I don't want to do that now. So yeah, no, I think that's definitely really important. We have to start embracing positives.

 

MS: I think another reason why we need more positive information about vaccines or even stuff other than vaccines is because like as humans, we tend to, you know, um, relate or even trust negative information more than positive information. Like if someone is telling you the benefits of this, you're less likely to believe it as compared to if someone would be telling like, you know, disadvantages or like negative things about a specific thing. So I think if we have more information about the positive side of a vaccine, of a certain perspective, it will be more useful in shaping our public perception about a certain thing.

 

[Transition Music Plays]

 

MC: Next up, we got Carina and her research in misinformation affecting diagnostics rates in autism within women.

 

CS: ASD is a lifelong cognitive disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate, interact with others, and process information. ASD is a spectrum disorder, meaning that no two people are the same. It can be diagnosed at any age and anyone can be born with it regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, economic status. Um, to be diagnosed, a person must meet specific criteria that is done through a psychiatric evaluation. Many women tend not to fit this criteria, which causes difficulties in getting a proper diagnosis - or they tend to receive their diagnosis much later in life. I can personally relate to this. I myself am autistic and I was officially diagnosed in December 2023. I have been waiting to be assessed since I was 15. It's a very frustrating experience and that was the main focus of my research was to bring attention to the pitfalls of the DSM for women. So really briefly: history of how Diagnosis was possible. So Leo Kanner was the first person to coin the term autism in 1943. He observed eight boys and three girls who struggled with social interaction and had difficulty with change. The first edition of the DSM was published in the 1970s by the American Psychology Association. It included infantile autism as a potential research field, but not a diagnosable disorder. However, the third edition changed this. It added autism as a disorder that could be diagnosed, but it was very inflexible. The fifth edition of this is the most recent version from 2013 and it changed the name of the disorder to Autism Spectrum Disorder and kind of streamlined the diagnosis process. Based on this current criteria, female patients are diagnosed four times less than male patients, which demonstrates how despite the evolution of this DSM, the criteria is still not representative of the entire community.  So I really wanted to dive into what factors contribute to lower diagnostic rates in women, how does the underrepresentation of women in autism research influence diagnostic criteria, how barriers to diagnosis impact autistic women, and how can the DSM be revised to encompass the diverse aspects of the community. So why is there gender bias? So firstly, there's the concept of masking. This is the process of using cognitive strategies to minimize the appearance of autistic traits in social settings, and is very much done by women specifically. This includes copying facial expressions. forcing eye contact, hiding stims, and causes difficulties in diagnosis. Next, there are common gender differences. Autistic women are usually shy, have attention issues, are very emotionally sensitive, perfectionist, and are very determined, which is often dismissed as normal behavior for women. Another factor is misdiagnosis of other medical conditions. Many autistic women are diagnosed with other conditions instead of ASD. Which leads to improper treatment and the dismissal of traits. Lastly is the problem that female patients are rarely used in psychological studies. Majority of researchers are men, tend to examine male patients. Stereotypes and media have caused people to believe ASD is a boy's condition, and even racialized women are  So my research specifically was looking to see how autistic women have been impacted by this gender bias in the diagnostic process. So I created a survey using common themes I found throughout my literature review to see how much they related to them. In total, 22 participants filled out my survey. Most of them were between the ages of 19 and 30 and were diagnosed around this age range as well. Most participants were located in North America and were white. In my survey, there were some very clear trends. Participants were very knowledgeable about how ASD presents differently in women. The most relatable statements were that they have felt inferior to their peers. They hide their autistic traits in order to fit in. They have been diagnosed with other disorders before autism. They explored online or unofficial forms of assessments before getting a diagnosis. They follow scripts in social settings to maintain composure and do not feel supported by their local health care systems in relation to knowledge of autism in women. I did have an optional third section of my survey where I had participants add comments if they wanted to. One participant said that their largest barrier for diagnosis was the cost associated with it. In case you were unaware, it is extremely expensive to get diagnosed with autism unless at a place like Ontario you wait for OHIP referrals like I did, which In case you heard earlier, it takes like five years, so do not recommend. Another participant said that while the diagnostic criteria is improving, many people believe the push for a wider DSM is widening the spectrum rather than just being inclusive of who's already there. And this contributes to a rising trend online where people believe that autistic women are faking it for attention and kind of adds to the general misinformation about ASD in women. One person noted that the common traits associated with ASD in women are filled with stereotypes based on white, heterosexual, cis women with class privilege and therefore is not diverse enough. So what does this all mean? My findings reflect a clear pattern of how the lack of research into ASD in women creates diagnostic criteria that make it difficult for women to be diagnosed. Most of the participants exhibited common masking traits. This is a very common experience and it is so imprinted into social norms for autistic women to cover up what society believes as negative behavior due to this public perception of ASD. So many people in society view ASD, among other disabilities, as being negative and perceive people with these conditions as inferior, which discourages women who want to be assessed later in life from doing so because they believe that they'll be perceived negatively. Many participants have been told that they don't fit the stereotypes of ASD, which have been shaped by media which tend to showcase ASD primarily in white heterosexual men. Many participants were diagnosed with something before ASD, which shows how misinformation is causing misdiagnosis. The DSM doesn't represent the entire autistic community and excludes a lot of people. Ultimately, the biggest issue is that this misinformed public perception of ASD, especially in women, is causing people to not have access to beneficial resources. So, what can we do? There's obviously a clear issue with the DSM criteria, which has not been updated since 2013, and something must be done to ensure all autistic people are represented by it. We should perform a large scale study study on how ASD presents in autistic women and uses to tailor the DSM to female patients. It's important to ensure that research is inclusive and represents people from many different backgrounds. By creating a more inclusive DSM,  future autistic women can be diagnosed at any age that allows for easy access to helpful resources. Another place for improvement would be provide current healthcare professionals with intersectionality of ASD and how gender and race may impact how it works. Their patient presents it. Finally, prove and show more representation. As discussed before, most representation is of white heterosexual men. We need to get perspectives from diverse groups when writing autistic women and ensure that it is accurate and positive. Ultimately, there's a lot of change that needs to be done, but I think it's something that we can accomplish.

 

MS: Okay, now me and Melissa are gonna ask some questions from Carina about her research.

 

MC: first question for you, Carina, is that you talk about media representation. And so, there's this show, The Good Doctor, you talk about, and Shawn, the protagonist, that has autism, but in the show, he's presented as if he's a genius and that autism is a superpower that he's born with instead of what it actually is. And I know that it doesn't represent beyond the right, the white heterosexual sexual male in media. Really, that's all we have. Do you think that this overly positive representation of autism would change people's understanding or perception in general?

 

CS: So that's a really good question. Yeah, so media representation for autism spectrum disorder is very few.  Like you said, Shawn from The Good Doctor is one, but you know, he's a genius. His, autism is his superpower. You know, like he uses it to solve medical mysteries. And as cool as that is, and as cool as I wish I had a superpower, unfortunately, it's not very realistic. It is positive: that is definitely true. Um, he, you know, although he struggles in the beginning of that show with like, getting respect from others, near the end, everyone, like, especially in the more recent seasons and stuff, from what I've seen, you know, like, his co-workers and stuff really like him, and he has relationships, and all that stuff. But, it's just,  the way that it, it kind of interprets ASD, I think is part of the reason why the perception of it is so misinformed. I mean, that's the best way that you can say it.  We have other people on this end like Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory. While he was never actually confirmed to be autistic, it's something that you can pretty much infer from watching that show. His behaviour is very similar to an autistic man. Also, you know, depending on who you ask, it's very real representation. However, it doesn't encompass the entire community. And while it is important for us to have positive representation like, like Shawn, it is also important that we get many different experiences. We embrace the diversity of the autistic community. So, you know, there's been shows recently that have attempted to do this. Um, shows like Atypical, which I personally haven't seen, but I have heard good things about it in terms of the representation. But honestly, that's the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head. It's, like I said, it's very few. That's the, that's the importance of why we need to keep going with this. We need to hire autistic writers. They can provide their own experiences. We need to see them from many different factors. Like, if we can have, see, all these characters that we listed earlier were, they're, they're men. To have female representation would be excellent and would help to show the general public that ASD is not just a boy's condition, like many believe it is. It's also important that we get representation of other minority groups in the autistic community, such as Um, racialized people, especially racialized women, given how much there is of a disparity of their diagnosis rates. Different sexualities, different, you know, economic status, all that kind of stuff. When it comes to things like that, I know that there's like a very common phrase that all representation is good representation. And while that's not necessarily true, if You know, the characters aren't written as very accurate. It is important that people are represented in media.  When you're represented in media, you feel seen, you feel like others can relate to you, and you feel like you're not alone. That's the biggest thing. It's important for people to feel like they're part of community in order to be accepted. So, I think, and that's the biggest thing with having, you know, women with ASD being, um, diagnosed so late is that they struggled so long with feelings of inferiority, and when you get that diagnosis, you might feel a little less alone and that you're in a community. So, you know, kind of going back to what you said about the question with the good doctor and that kind of representation, it is helpful,  but there needs to be more, and it needs to encompass everyone. It's a good starting point, but we can do more.

MS: Yeah, I think I really agree with what you said, like near the end that really like a first step forward so that we know there's beyond the typical representation that we get. Knowing that there's more, like although it's still very limited, at least we're going forward.

 

CS: Exactly, yeah. And I also think it's really important for especially things like kids shows to see them in there because when kids can learn empathy and understand how maybe their peers, maybe in school. All that is going to lead us to a more accepting and a more accessible society.

 

MS: So your research emphasizes on the significance of inclusivity in ASD  research and diagnostic criteria that is like very relevant to my research as well because I found that a significant factor that leads to mistrust of pregnant women in the health  systems and in vaccines is that They are excluded from the third  phase of the trial of vaccines. So one might think the effect of the vaccine on women's health and even on the fetus is just an estimate because they're not even included in the trials. So in your opinion, what would be some effective strategies or initiatives that you believe could be implemented to address this under representation of women in clinical research or the fact that they're not even included in proper research trials?

 

CS: Okay, so, yeah. No, that's the biggest issue is that even though there is being research done, they're not being involved.

 

MS: Yeah.

 

CS: so the biggest issue present is the dsm itself. Yeah, it's the criteria that All psychiatrists use to diagnose people with autism and it hasn't been updated since 2013. I feel like it should be updated. [laughs] So, you know, the biggest question is what can we do? And you want to talk about how studies and stuff can be used to find that representation in fetal patients.  So,  I think the biggest thing that you have to do is when you're making your study, you have to be inclusive of all backgrounds. It's kind of like what we were talking about with the, with the TV show characters. Yeah. That you have to include all aspects of, I guess, womanhood. Getting different races of women. Ethnicity, socioeconomic statuses, sexualities, all those kinds of demographic factors are just going to make sure that when you do create this new DSM, it's going to be more inclusive and that all future autistic women can be diagnosed at a younger age. There are women that are being diagnosed, but they're being diagnosed at a time that it's almost not as helpful for certain services. For example, if you are able to get diagnosed young, like most, you know, autistic boys are. They get access to help in school accommodations. They can get, um, help in their community. Maybe there are certain programs that are going on. They can get access to healthcare professionals that can help develop their milestones. When you're diagnosed at age 19, there's not really much that's available for you. I mean, university accommodations are wonderful. Yes, but, You know, I've, I've missed out on a lot of things. Yeah. So the biggest thing that we want to focus on in research is how can we use these tools and these experiences of autistic women now? And how can we use what they experienced at a young age to cater to the diagnostic criteria? I think this is just going to be the most about intersectionality. We need to make sure that everyone's represented in this research and making sure that everyone can be included or can be assessed with this criteria. But current healthcare professionals now, they need modern research even if something isn't specifically published for the DSM to update it. They need to be aware of how  ASD presents in women differently because all patients need to be assessed equitably and should not be impacted by potential biases of a health care provider. Those are going to be the kind of the biggest areas of focus if more research is done. It's just about like actually listening to the voices of those who aren't listened to at all when it comes to research. We need the female representation, that's the most important thing in the research.

 

MS: That makes a lot of sense and I agree with you. Just a follow up question on that, like, I love how you emphasized the How getting a diagnosis at a very early age is important and super useful, and I do agree with you on that. But do you think that getting a diagnosis at an early age may have potential disadvantages to the person who is being diagnosed? As in, for example, like if you're, if you're being diagnosed at an early age, your peers might not understand what you're going through, and you might be more stereotypes about you and You might not feel more included?

 

CS: That that's a, that's a really good question. Right now, I think there is very much kind of a double-edged sword to that. Yeah. Whereas, yes, it is very helpful to be diagnosed at a young age in order to access potential services. But what you said on the other hand about how it can affect ableism at a young age, that is definitely something to keep in mind. I think that's really dependent on the person themselves. However, I think that as we grow as a society and we are, you know, more information is being talked about, I think that this ultimately won't be an issue or will be less of an issue because at least there are supports when you have a diagnosis. Personally, I don't think that there is, there's as much of a downside to being diagnosed early because it opens the door for so much else. I do see your point though, but I think as, you know, our society becomes more inclusive and more accessible, the issues that you stated are less likely to occur, but it is definitely something to keep in mind. Yeah, no, that's a really complex question. I don't necessarily know if I have an answer for that, but it is something that I will definitely think about.

 

[Transition Music Plays]

 

MS: Okay. So now Melissa will talk about inadequate sun safety practices.

 

MC: Like my fiend said, uh, my day I did my research to kind of investigate why people don't practice sun safety properly even though most of them are informed, at least to a more generalized degree. There's been a lot of studies surveyed, and they found that the general public are inadequate in practicing sun safety. And they only have very general knowledge, such as like, “Okay, don't go into the sun when it's really bright outside or stop on sunscreen if you're gonna do so”. To me, that's kind of weird because there's so many ways to get information now. There's the entirety of the internet, you could go to your doctor, and even the government is often releasing campaigns to protect yourself. So why aren't people doing it? With these two models of communication where there's the personal one of the internet and medical counseling and the general one like campaigns, one is more effective than the other. The general campaigning mass model communication doesn't work as well because there's only so much information you can put out in a campaign. Like in Australia they had a SunSmart campaign that consisted of like, uh, 20 words, which is not going to get much out. And then to the more personal channel of information. There's the internet which is a questionable source to get your information But it is a source like with the clean girl trends and stuff on social media the past two, three years people have been getting more interested in ways to get clear skin, have young looking skin, have the glass skin that Koreans typically have as presented by media. And a large part of this is sunscreen, especially Korean sunscreen. And then, with that, just a side note, a really interesting thing that Mahveen asked me yesterday is that although there's trending Korean sunscreens, the ones in North America are usually marketed for North America, where people in Korea don't even use it. So, anyways, going back to the main kind of central thread, so even with trends like this that people keep up with, they're still not practicing sun safety properly somehow. So my research question to sum up all of that is, why do people not practice or are inadequate in their sun safety measures, even when they're well informed or have many avenues to be informed about sun protection and skin cancer? And so to answer this, I did a survey about people's perspective, knowledge, and practice surrounding topics of UVR exposure, sun safety, and skin cancer. Uh, I sent this survey mainly to first-year university students because that is all I have access to.  And my demographic is based in Vancouver. Much of it is SFU students in the CS program, so very limited, but it's, it's something to look at. In my survey, I would have like first person perspective statements where like, “Oh, I wear sunscreen every day”. And then they'd have a scale. They'd agree or disagree with the statement. So with this, I found that most people were very positive in their perspective surrounding these topics. And they said that they're either interested or they are knowledgeable in these topics. But then I found that their knowledge in these topics are actually very little. I'd asked them to state certain facts and then they'd agree with it, right? But most of them said that they don't,  they disagree with knowing certain things that professionals consider as common knowledge. You need to keep yourself safe from the sun and UVR. And then from that, I also found that the practices are also negative. Like I remember there was this specific one where out of 15, 20 ish people that surveyed, there's only one person that we apply sunscreen.  And so from this,  I reached the very clear conclusion that they're not eligible in the topic. Therefore they have bad practices.  It's the same results as the previous studies that found that people practice sun safety inadequately, but.  I found that people are very positive in thinking that they are knowledgeable when they're really not  and I think this shows a discrepancy between what Professionals think as common knowledge versus what the public perceives as common knowledge because to them they're like, oh I already have all the knowledge. I need to stay safe from the Sun. Why why do I need to? No more specifics when really they know like the very surface of the iceberg and they need at least towards the center of the iceberg to keep themselves safe. And so with this very clear problem of like this discrepancy of people being informed and how they think they're informed when they're not, it's to kind of raise awareness and educate about the public about what they actually need to keep themselves safe instead of just basing it off of the avoid the sun, slap on sunscreen, wear long sleeves.  And so I think raising awareness is a really big way to tackle this because it's not like we're lacking the research to solve the problem. The problem is just that people aren't informed. Raising awareness and having people seek more personal avenues of information that I talked about earlier, like medical counseling or even social media, is an opportunity for them to better inform themselves and keep themselves safe because mass communication, like campaigns, simply won't get enough for them to have all they need. And so to me and to you as audiences, medical counseling is a very useful avenue where  You could even just book appointment with your family doctor and talk to them about how you feel about some skin cancer and the sun. And then the other avenue of social media is very dangerous to take, but it is a way for you to seek information. And if you are to approach information that way just to make sure that what you're seeing on social media is from credible people and they know what they're talking about.  And to raise awareness and better educate everyone in the public about sunscreen, skin cancer, and nuclear exposure, we can start from you and me.

 

CS: Okay, so now that Melissa has talked, has finished discussing her topic, um, me and Maveen are going to be asking her some questions that we formed while listening. So, um, my question for you, Melissa, is that you discuss in your report that people, especially young people, believe that they're properly informed about skin care related to the sun and UV rays and stuff like that, but they don't wish to better understand their knowledge of this field. Obviously, this is creating like a cycle of misinformation and ignorance, and this harms their health, ultimately. You also talk about the potential of social media use, particularly in the “skin-tok” genre of media, which, um, for the audience is like, very specific videos where, that go into like, maintaining the best skin, and having, you know, perfect, perfect skin, no acne, no nothing. I think this is a really untapped market for informing youth about skin health. So in your opinion, what methods of social media information do you think could be used to ensure that youth learn about the risks of UV radiation without risking the spread of misinformation?

 

MC: So I think about “skin-tok”, you have to go to credible sources. I know, it sounds crazy that I'm putting the two words credible sources and social media together, but it exists out there, trust me. Usually I say to avoid your influencers, your bloggers that says like, “today let's go through my collection of sunscreen” and they pull like 10 of them, do not go to those. Instead, go to videos that you'd probably skip, or usually find boring, and then, with those, go to the bio of those people, there's this specific account that I like called, um, Dr. Muffin Labs, I think, where she is,  uh, chemist with a PhD that has worked in the cosmetic industry for like, I think the past 10 years. So finding people like that would, number one, make sure what you're getting is right. Number two, be very helpful in recommending like to yourself what you should do and probably Provide you of information that you can't get even with your influencers that did do their research.

 

CS: Mm hmm. Yeah, I know that makes sense. The kind of the most objective you can get the better. So kind of as a follow up then I have for you, um, you kind of talked about it with the influencers. Do you think that the potential, or do you think that the, the capitalist nature of social media, because, I mean, who's kidding who, the whole point of social media is to like, you sell products and, you know, algorithms and all those fancy words and stuff. Do you think that this has a potential to reduce objectivity in information spreading, like influencers getting paid promotion to sell skin care products?

 

MC: Yes, um I think actually just a year or two ago.  Remember how I talked about Korean skincare earlier? There was a Korean sunscreen that straight up got debunked and cancelled like off the streets.

 

CS: I think I remember that.

 

MC: Yeah, it's I think it's called Cantella or something. It's green. I remember that but What I noticed that they they did precisely that they pay a lot of influencers to promote them and say that “hey, our sunscreen is so good, so lightweight”, but the reality is that it barely even functioned as a sunscreen after like, that's what they found afterwards. But that's in the aftermath after countless people have brought and used the product. And so the fact that social media is capitalists, like you said, is important. And like in its nature, it's always going to put your health in correlation to people's wallets. So it is what it is, but it's just like navigating the Internet overall. I think the best thing we can do is to just dig the deepest we can to see if there is any, like from a more political-economic view, to just follow the money and see if there's any like big power that's trying to get you into buying something or if it's something that's more on the objective side and would be helpful to you. I think it's more of like you, you need to judge by yourself. I can't go out and be like, Oh, this source is good or this person is good.  In the end, you always have to look out for yourself, really.

 

CS: Absolutely. I think in an age like ours where, you know,  school and all like social media and all that stuff, like everything is tied to the internet. At some point, you are going to have to develop some form of digital literacy.  You can't survive without it. That's how people end up falling for scams and buying shady products. So I think you're totally right. I think at a certain point, people need to understand how to debunk what's real and what's not to make sure that, cause it can have health effects. Like you said, if people are buying shifty Korean sunscreen and then it does nothing and they get sunburns and skin damage, then  Maybe that was their fault for, you know, listening to paid promotions and not doing their own research. So yeah, that definitely makes lots of sense.

 

MS: So, you talked about how people have very surface level knowledge about sun safety and how only one of the people that you surveyed, Reapplied sunscreen. So my question to you is that do you think, like, not being able to practice sun safety is only due to limited knowledge or are there any other factors contributing to it? Like, for example, I know that you have to reapply sunscreen, but like considering that I'm a full time student or for example, if someone is also working and has like a lot of Things to do in their daily lives and don't have the time to you know, reapply sunscreen and have like a proper Skin care routine. So do you think these factors also contribute towards this?  Sun safety practices or not?

 

MC: Yeah, um looking at like previous studies on that's on a larger scale, right? They genuinely found that like, the less knowledgeable a person is, the worse their practice is, but there's also factors, like you said, like not having time, right? And then, Um, I looked at, there was one particular study that I looked at from the 90s that's a bit older because I wanted to see back then and now, right? So like, back then, uh, tanning was a very trending thing.  And so because of that, people would then not put on sunscreen because they want to get the nice summer tan going. And so, Cool. Really, like, yes, there's the correlation between knowledge and what they're doing, but there's also personal desires and time. Like, I know it's not realistic for you to maybe go out for a full day and then, like, take out your sunscreen lotion, put it on when your hand's all dirty and greasy. Yeah. And then, like, I know that companies are trying to get around this by, like, pushing sunscreen sticks, sunscreen cushions, like, just an alternative way, but then  Like and like overall, there are many factors that play into why people practice sunscreen inadequately or like you should not forget that. That's also a thing because we're humans. We're not robots. And so  I think that although there is the correlation and kind of causation between knowledge and practice.  There's also other factors that I think are just a natural part of life. And so I wouldn't worry too much about it, honestly. Like,  as long as you're not going out into the beach every single day for like eight hours, you should be fine.

 

MS: Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Transition Music Plays]

 

CS: Okay, so what have we learned? Ultimately, you know, misinformation is bad. I think we all knew that already.

[Everyone laughs]

 

MC: It is the villain!

 

[CS laughs]

 

CS: Yeah, it's the villain.

 

MS: It's the problem!

 

CS: But the reason that it's so bad is because it affects public perception. And the biggest way to tackle this is the spread of good information. Ultimately, all of our different topics piled this idea that misinformation is negatively impacting people and causing the general public to believe things that aren't true. These have various effects, but luckily it is something that we can tackle.

 

MS: Yeah. And these effects range from affecting your health to your daily lives, so you need to be more concerned about it. The most important thing is that for digital literacy, you have to do it for yourself. Nobody's gonna come and tell you to believe this and not to believe this. Yes, some people can help, but the biggest part or the biggest role is played by you and you have that responsibility upon yourself. So yeah, hold yourself accountable.

 

ALL: Yeah!

 

MC: And so make sure you get good information to perception check yourself. Yes, I just title-dropped. And see if you're a nat-1 or nat-20!

 

[Outro Music Plays]