From Evidence to Engagement: Understanding Online Resistance to Community Water Fluoridation for Public Health Communication—A Qualitative Study

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: This study explored how individuals in an online anti-CWF community construct and sustain opposition narratives to inform evidence-based communication and policy engagement. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken with adults who self-identified as not supportive of CWF. Fourteen participants from the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States of America were recruited via the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page, a prominent global hub for anti-fluoridation discourse. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom between January and July 2025. Data were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. Codes were organized into main, generic, and sub-categories and quantified by endorsement frequency. Reporting followed SRQR and COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Five main categories were identified: (1) Knowledge, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Policy Views; (2) Information Sources and Trust; (3) Reasons for Opposition; (4) Grassroots and Community Actions; and (5) Alternatives and Conditions for Acceptability. Opposition to CWF was shaped by ethical, health, and institutional concerns rather than by scientific disagreement alone. Eight generic categories captured key reasons for opposition, including perceptions of mass medication without consent, health and social harms, institutional distrust, concerns about industrial waste, ethical objections, skepticism about benefits, preference for individualized alternatives, and experiences of professional dismissal. Anti-fluoride networks and social media were the most trusted sources of information (86%), while trust in mainstream science and health authorities was very low (< 15%). CONCLUSIONS: Opposition to CWF is sustained through network-mediated information ecosystems and reinforced by behavioral economic mechanisms, including loss aversion, autonomy bias, and default framing effects. Effective public health responses must therefore move beyond evidence dissemination to incorporate network-aware communication and behavioral insights-informed strategies that prioritize transparency, public participation, and equitable framing of CWF within broader oral health policy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.