World Immunisation Week 2026

By Sara Shahbaz

Every year, World Immunisation Week (24–30^th April) reminds us that vaccines are one of the most successful tools in public health, yet hesitancy continues to persist even in countries with strong healthcare systems. This creates a persistent paradox: if the science is so clear, why does it not convince everyone?

The answer lies less in the evidence itself and more in how it is communicated.

Science speaks in data, probabilities, and uncertainty, while people understand the world through stories. This gap has increasingly shaped how immunisation is received, allowing more emotionally compelling narratives to travel further and faster than scientific consensus. 

Humans are wired for narrative. We process information more easily when it is framed around people, cause and effect, and emotional stakes. Scientific data, by contrast, is abstract and often impersonal. A statistic like “1 in a million” requires interpretation and can feel distant, especially when compared to a vivid personal account. Cognitive biases mean that memorable stories often outweigh large datasets in shaping perception, and health decisions are rarely made through logic alone. Fear, empathy, and trust all play a significant role, as seen during COVID-19 when personal experiences and emotional responses often shaped attitudes toward vaccines more strongly than scientific evidence. 

This helps explain why emotionally driven narratives can outperform science in public discourse. They are typically simple, engaging, and easy to share, often built around individuals and clear cause-and-effect. In some cases, they also lean into fear, framing health decisions in ways that heighten anxiety and urgency, even when the underlying evidence is weak or absent. Public health messaging, on the other hand, tends to rely on aggregated data, careful language, and technical explanations. While accurate, it can struggle to connect on a human level. The issue is not that the science is weak, but that it is often communicated in a way that feels distant from everyday experience. 

A recent example illustrates how quickly this gap can shape behaviour. Comments made by the US president suggesting a link between paracetamol use in pregnancy and autism were widely shared, despite a lack of scientific evidence. Subsequent research has found no causal link, reinforcing long-standing medical guidance that paracetamol is safe when used as directed. Yet the impact of the claim was immediate, with reports showing a measurable drop in paracetamol use among pregnant women following the statement. What made the claim influential was not its scientific basis, but its narrative clarity. It was simple, emotionally resonant, and, to some extent, rooted in fear, while the scientific response was necessarily more cautious, nuanced, and slower to circulate. 

This is where science communication and public relations become central to the success of immunisation programmes. Science communication ensures accuracy and explains how vaccines work, while PR shapes how messages are framed and received. However, both have often defaulted to information delivery rather than narrative engagement. Facts alone do not necessarily change minds. Stories, when used responsibly, can make those facts meaningful and relatable, without relying on fear as the primary driver. 

There is an opportunity for immunisation programmes to rethink how they communicate. Human-centred storytelling can make the consequences of vaccine-preventable diseases tangible in ways statistics cannot. Positive narratives that focus on protection, care, and community can be just as powerful as those based on risk, and are often more sustainable than fear-based approaches. Trusted voices, such as local healthcare professionals or community leaders, can help anchor these stories in familiarity and credibility. Digital platforms also allow these narratives to be shared widely and quickly, particularly during global campaigns like World Immunisation Week. At the same time, transparency should remain central, as acknowledging uncertainty can strengthen rather than weaken trust. 

There are important ethical considerations in doing this well. Emotional storytelling can be persuasive, but it must not become manipulative or distort the science it seeks to support. Leaning too heavily on fear can undermine trust over time, even if it achieves short-term impact. Striking the right balance between clarity, engagement, and accuracy is essential. More broadly, this challenge highlights that communication is as important as distribution in global health. Even the most effective vaccines cannot succeed if they are not trusted, and trust is built through connection as much as evidence. 

Ultimately, the challenge facing immunisation is not only scientific but narrative. Vaccines may be developed in laboratories, but their success depends on how they are understood and accepted by the public. In that sense, the future of immunisation will depend not just on innovation in science, but on the effectiveness of accurate and engaging storytelling, because in public health, the story we tell can be just as powerful as the intervention itself.