Dataset Information

Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

There is good evidence that for many behaviours, increasing risk appraisal can lead to a change in behaviour, heightened when efficacy appraisals are also increased. The present systematic review addressed whether interventions presenting a risk message increase risk appraisal and an increase in vaccination intentions and uptake.

Method

A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of interventions presenting a risk message and measuring risk appraisal and intentions and uptake post-intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses investigated the size of the effect that interventions had on vaccination risk appraisal and on vaccination behaviour or intention to vaccinate, and the size of the relationship between vaccination risk appraisal and vaccination intentions and uptake.

Results

Eighteen studies were included and 16 meta-analysed. Interventions overall had small significant effects on risk appraisal (d = 0.161, p = .047) and perceptions of susceptibility (d = 0.195, p = .025), but no effect on perceptions of severity (d = -0.036, p = .828). Interventions showed no effect on intention to vaccinate (d = 0.138, p = .195) and no effect on vaccination behaviour (d = 0.043, p = .826). Interventions typically did not include many behaviour change techniques (BCTs), with the most common BCT unique to intervention conditions being 'Information about Health Consequences'. Few of the included studies attempted to, or successfully increased, efficacy appraisals.

Conclusions

Overall, there is a lack of good-quality primary studies, and existing interventions are suboptimal. The inclusion of additional BCTs, including those to target efficacy appraisals, could increase intervention effectiveness. The protocol (CRD42015029365) is available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Previous research indicates that an increase in risk appraisal is associated with increased uptake in health-related behaviours. Research suggests that interventions increasing risk appraisal have a greater effect on intention when elements of efficacy appraisals are simultaneously increased. What does this study add? This is the first systematic review to examine the effect of interventions on risk appraisal and vaccination uptake using only experimental studies. Limitations of the interventions themselves, and those caused by study methods and reporting, mean that the potential value of this type of review is lost. Instead, its value is in shining a light on the paucity of experimental studies in this area, and the quality of methods and reporting used. Future experimental studies should examine interventions that focus exclusively on increasing risk and efficacy appraisal compared to controls, use conditional measures of risk, and improve reporting to enable both more accurate coding of intervention content and more accurate assessments of study bias.

SUBMITTER: Parsons JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6767484 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Parsons Joanne E JE Newby Katie V KV French David P DP

British journal of health psychology 20180917 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>There is good evidence that for many behaviours, increasing risk appraisal can lead to a change in behaviour, heightened when efficacy appraisals are also increased. The present systematic review addressed whether interventions presenting a risk message increase risk appraisal and an increase in vaccination intentions and uptake.<h4>Method</h4>A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of interventions presenting a risk message and measuring risk appraisal and in ...[more]

PMID: 30225851

Similar Datasets

Project description:The relative importance of different attitudes in predicting vaccination among healthcare personnel (HCP) is unclear. We hypothesized that HCP who feel at risk without vaccination or say they would regret not getting vaccinated would be more likely to get vaccinated than HCP who do not expect these emotional benefits.A prospective cohort of 1544 HCP with direct patient care was enrolled from September 18 to December 18, 2010 at Scott & White Healthcare in Texas and Kaiser Permanente Northwest in Oregon and Washington. An Internet-based questionnaire assessed pre-season intention to be vaccinated and included 12 questions on attitudes about vaccination: single-item measures of perceived susceptibility and vaccine effectiveness, 5 items that were summed to form a concerns about vaccine scale, and 5 items summed to form an emotional benefits of vaccination scale. Influenza vaccination status for the 2010-2011 season and for 5 prior seasons was confirmed by medical record extraction.There were significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCP on all attitude items; 72% of vaccinated HCP agreed that they "worry less about getting the flu" if vaccinated, compared to only 26% of the unvaccinated (odds ratio=7.4, 95% confidence interval=5.8-9.5). In a multivariate model, the emotional benefits scale was the strongest predictor of 2010-2011 seasonal influenza vaccination, after adjusting for other attitude measures, prior vaccination history, and pre-season intention to be vaccinated. The predictive value of the emotional benefits scale was strongest for HCP with low pre-season intention to be vaccinated, where HCP vaccine receipt was 15% versus 83% for those with low versus high scores on the emotional benefits scale.The expected emotional benefits of vaccination strongly affect seasonal influenza vaccination among HCP, even after taking into account other attitudes, pre-season intentions, and prior vaccination history. These attitudes are promising targets for future vaccination campaigns.

Project description:ContextInfluenza vaccination rates remain below Healthy People 2020 goals. This project sought to systematically review economic evaluations of healthcare-based quality improvement interventions for improving influenza vaccination uptake among general populations and healthcare workers.Evidence acquisitionThe databases MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, Greylit, and Worldcat were searched in July 2016 for papers published from January 2004 to July 2016. Eligible studies evaluated efforts by bodies within the healthcare system to encourage influenza vaccination by means of an organizational or structural change. For each study, program costs per enrollee and per additional enrollee vaccinated were derived (excluding vaccine costs, standardized to 2017 U.S. dollars). Complete economic evaluations were examined when available.Evidence synthesisOf 2,350 records, 18 articles were eligible and described 29 unique interventions. Most interventions improved vaccine uptake. Among 23 interventions in general populations, the median program cost was $3.27 (interquartile range, $0.82-$11.53) per enrollee and $50.78 (interquartile range, $27.85-$124.84) per additional enrollee vaccinated. Among ten complete economic evaluations in general populations, three studies reported net cost savings, four reported costs <$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and three reported costs <$60,000 per life saved. Among six interventions in healthcare workers, the median program cost was $8.09 (interquartile range, $5.03-$10.31) per worker enrolled and $125.24 (interquartile range, $96.06-$171.38) per additional worker vaccinated (there were no complete economic analyses).ConclusionsQuality improvement interventions for influenza vaccination involve per-enrollee costs that are similar to the cost of the vaccine itself ($11.78-$36.08/dose). Based on limited available evidence in general populations, quality improvement interventions may be cost saving to cost effective for the health system.

Dataset Information

Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets