The effect of framing and communicating COVID-19 vaccine side-effect risks on vaccine intentions for adults in the UK and the USA: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sudharsanan N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419378 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFear over side-effects is one of the main drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A large literature in the behavioral and communication sciences finds that how risks are framed and presented to individuals affects their judgments of its severity. However, it remains unknown whether such framing changes can affect COVID-19 vaccine behavior and be deployed as policy solutions to reduce hesitancy.MethodsWe conducted a pre-registered randomized controlled trial among 8998 participants in the United States and the United Kingdom to examine the effects of different ways of framing and presenting vaccine side-effects on individuals' willingness to get vaccinated and their perceptions of vaccine safety.ResultsAdding a descriptive risk label ('very low risk') next to the numerical side-effect and providing a comparison to motor-vehicle mortality increased participants' willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine by 3.0 percentage points (p=0.003) and 2.4 percentage points (p=0.049), respectively. These effects were independent and additive and combining both framing strategies increased willingness to receive the vaccine by 6.1 percentage points (p<0.001). Mechanistically, we find evidence that these framing effects operate by increasing individuals' perceptions of how safe the vaccine is.ConclusionsLow-cost side-effect framing strategies can meaningfully affect vaccine intentions at a population level.FundingHeidelberg Institute of Global Health.Clinical trial numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (#DRKS00025551).
| S-EPMC9381035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic metalloid that has many human health implications. Its strong prevalence in the bedrock and thus much of the well water in New England puts many private well owners at risk. It is also found in food products, particularly those that contain rice. Despite the documented health risks, arsenic is not high on the list of concerns for residents of the region. This study will describe two types of environmental communication efforts that have been undertaken by the Dartmouth Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program (DTMSRP)-the development and evaluation of a comprehensive website, Arsenic and You, and a mental models research approach to better understand the disconnect between expert and community perceptions of arsenic risk. We find that there are knowledge gaps between the two, particularly regarding the origin of arsenic in drinking water and food, the necessity of testing well water, and the process for treating water that is above recommended limits. Moreover, the mental models approach provides a structured framework for better understanding these gaps. A website can address some of these disconnects, and it is important to have a "one-stop shop" for vetted information on the risks and steps to reduce exposure.
| S-EPMC6766008 | biostudies-other
Project description:The success of mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns rests on widespread uptake. However, although vaccinations provide good protection, they do not offer full immunity and while they likely reduce transmission of the virus to others, the extent of this remains uncertain. This produces a dilemma for communicators who wish to be transparent about benefits and harms and encourage continued caution in vaccinated individuals but not undermine confidence in an important public health measure. In two large pre-registered experimental studies on quota-sampled UK public participants we investigate the effects of providing transparent communication-including uncertainty-about vaccination effectiveness on decision-making. In Study 1 (n = 2097) we report that detailed information about COVID-19 vaccines, including results of clinical trials, does not have a significant impact on beliefs about the efficacy of such vaccines, concerns over side effects, or intentions to receive a vaccine. Study 2 (n = 2217) addressed concerns that highlighting the need to maintain protective behaviours (e.g., social distancing) post-vaccination may lower perceptions of vaccine efficacy and willingness to receive a vaccine. We do not find evidence of this: transparent messages did not significantly reduce perceptions of vaccine efficacy, and in some cases increased perceptions of efficacy. We again report no main effect of messages on intentions to receive a vaccine. The results of both studies suggest that transparently informing people of the limitations of vaccinations does not reduce intentions to be vaccinated but neither does it increase intentions to engage in protective behaviours post-vaccination.
| S-EPMC8070148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccines are being administered worldwide to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine boosters are essential for maintaining immunity and protecting against virus variants. The side effects of the primary COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., headache, nausea), however, could reduce intentions to repeat the vaccination experience, thereby hindering global inoculation efforts.PurposeThe aim of this research was to test whether side effects of a primary COVID-19 vaccine relate to reduced intentions to receive a COVID-19 booster. The secondary aim was to test whether psychological and demographic factors predict booster intentions.MethodsSecondary data analyses were conducted on a U.S. national sample of 551 individuals recruited through the online platform Prolific. Key measures in the dataset were side effects reported from a primary COVID-19 vaccination and subsequent intentions to receive a booster vaccine. Psychological and demographic variables that predicted primary vaccination intentions in prior studies were also measured.ResultsBooster intentions were high. COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions were uncorrelated with the number of side effects, intensity of side effects, or occurrence of an intense side effect from the primary COVID-19 vaccine. Correlational and regression analyses indicated intentions for a booster vaccination increased with positive vaccination attitudes, trust in vaccine development, worry about the COVID-19 pandemic, low concern over vaccine side effects, and democratic political party affiliation.ConclusionsSide effects of a primary COVID-19 vaccine were not directly associated with lower intentions to receive a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine early in the pandemic. However, many variables that predict primary vaccination intentions also predict booster intentions.
| S-EPMC9275396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis Registered Report attempted to conceptually replicate the finding that communicating herd immunity increases vaccination intentions (Betsch, et al., 2017, Nat. Hum. Behav., 0056). An additional objective was to explore the roles of descriptive social norms (vaccination behaviour of others) and the herd-immunity threshold (coverage needed to stop disease transmission).DesignAn online experiment with a 2 (herd-immunity explanation: present vs. absent) × 3 (descriptive norm: high vs. low vs. absent) × 2 (herd-immunity threshold: present vs. absent) between-subjects fractional design.MethodsSample consisted of 543 people (aged 18-64) residing in the United Kingdom. Participants first received an explanation of herd immunity emphasising social benefits (protecting others) in both textual and animated-infographic form. Next, they were faced with fictitious information about the disease, the vaccine, their country's vaccination coverage (80% or 20%), and the herd-immunity threshold (90%). Vaccination intention was self-rated.ResultsCompared to the control, communicating social benefits of herd immunity was effective in increasing vaccination intentions (F(1,541) = 6.97, p = .009, Partial Eta-Squared = 0.013). Communicating the descriptive norm or the herd-immunity threshold alongside the herd-immunity explanation demonstrated no observable effect.ConclusionCommunicating social benefits of herd immunity increased self-reported vaccination intentions against a fictitious disease, replicating previous findings. Although this result is positive, the practical relevance may be limited. Further research into the effect of social nudges to motivate vaccination is required, particularly with respect to the recent pandemic context and varying levels of vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC8646271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile different ways of presenting treatment effects can affect health care decisions, little is known about which presentations best help people make decisions consistent with their own values. We compared six summary statistics for communicating coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction with statins: relative risk reduction and five absolute summary measures-absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies.Methods and findingsWe conducted a randomized trial to determine which presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. We recruited adult volunteers who participated through an interactive Web site. Participants rated the relative importance of outcomes using visual analogue scales (VAS). We then randomized participants to one of the six summary statistics and asked them to choose whether to take statins based on this information. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the downsides of taking statins from the VAS score for CHD. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 2,978 participants completed the study. Relative risk reduction resulted in a 21% higher probability of choosing to take statins over all values of RIS compared to the absolute summary statistics. This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5; i.e., for every five participants shown the relative risk reduction one additional participant chose to take statins, compared to the other summary statistics. There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins. Natural frequencies were best understood (86% reported they understood them well or very well), and participants were most satisfied with this information.ConclusionsPresenting the benefits of taking statins as a relative risk reduction increases the likelihood of people accepting treatment compared to presenting absolute summary statistics, independent of the relative importance they attach to the consequences. Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision.Clinical trials registrationISRCTN85194921.
| S-EPMC2724738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesUptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is key to controlling the pandemic. However, a significant proportion of people report that they do not intend to have a vaccine, often because of concerns they have about vaccine side effects or safety. This study will assess the impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention, drawing on the Necessity-Concerns framework to address previously reported beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination, and assess whether hypothesised variables (illness coherence, perceived necessity and concerns) mediate change in vaccination intention.Trial designProspective, parallel two-arm, individually randomised (1:1) trial.ParticipantsAdults aged over 18 years, living in Scotland and not vaccinated for COVID-19. A quota sampling approach will be used with the aim of achieving a nationally representative sample on gender, region and ethnic group, with oversampling of individuals with no educational qualifications or with only school-level qualifications.Intervention and comparatorIntervention: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages addressing necessity beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination. Comparator: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages containing general information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination.Main outcomesPrimary outcome: Self-reported intention to receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if invited, immediately post-intervention.Secondary outcomesSelf-reported COVID-19 illness coherence, perceived necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine and concerns about a COVID-19 vaccine, immediately post-intervention.RandomisationQuasi-randomisation performed automatically by online survey software, by creating a variable derived from the number of seconds in the minute that the participant initiates the survey. Participants starting the survey at 0-14 or 30-44 seconds in the minute are allocated to the intervention and 15-29 or 45-59 seconds to the comparator.Blinding (masking)Participants will not be blinded to group assignment but will not be informed of the purpose of the study until they have completed the follow-up survey. Investigators will be blinded to allocation as all procedures will be undertaken digitally and remotely without any investigator contact with participants.Numbers to be randomised (sample size)A total of 1,094 will be randomised 1:1 into two groups with 547 individuals in each.Trial statusProtocol version number 1.0, 26th February 2021. Recruitment status: Not yet recruiting, set to start April 2021 and end April 2021.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04813770 , 24th March 2021.Full protocolThe full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.
| S-EPMC8082050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile tobacco and alcohol co-use is highly prevalent across the United States, little experimental research has examined ways to counter such dual use. We developed and tested messages about the risks of co-using tobacco and alcohol among adults who used a combustible tobacco product and drank alcohol within the 30 days.MethodsIn an online experiment, 1,300 participants were randomly assigned to read different messages about tobacco and alcohol co-use (e.g., Alcohol and tobacco cause throat cancer). Three between-subjects experiments manipulated the presence of: 1) a marker word (e.g., Warning), 2) text describing the symptoms of health effects and a quitting self-efficacy cue, and 3) an image depicting the health effect. Participants rated each message using a validated Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME) scale. We used independent samples t-tests to examine differences between experimental conditions. Results include effect sizes (Cohen's d) to compare standardized mean differences.ResultsOur sample was 64% male, 70% white, 23% Black, and 17% Hispanic/Latino with a mean age of 42.4 (SD = 16.4) years. Messages that described the symptoms of the health effect (d = 0.17, p = 0.002) and included an image (d = 0.11, p = 0.04) were rated significantly higher in PME compared with messages that did not describe symptoms and were text-only. We found no significant effects of a marker word or self-efficacy cue on PME.ConclusionsMessages that describe the symptoms of health effects and include text and images may be particularly effective for communicating the risks of tobacco and alcohol co-use and decreasing adverse health effects from co-use.
| S-EPMC9708929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Collective risks permeate society, triggering social dilemmas in which working toward a common goal is impeded by selfish interests. One such dilemma is mitigating runaway climate change. To study the social aspects of climate-change mitigation, we organized an experimental game and asked volunteer groups of three different sizes to invest toward a common mitigation goal. If investments reached a preset target, volunteers would avoid all consequences and convert their remaining capital into monetary payouts. In the opposite case, however, volunteers would lose all their capital with 50% probability. The dilemma was, therefore, whether to invest one's own capital or wait for others to step in. We find that communicating sentiment and outlook helps to resolve the dilemma by a fundamental shift in investment patterns. Groups in which communication is allowed invest persistently and hardly ever give up, even when their current investment deficits are substantial. The improved investment patterns are robust to group size, although larger groups are harder to coordinate, as evidenced by their overall lower success frequencies. A clustering algorithm reveals three behavioral types and shows that communication reduces the abundance of the free-riding type. Climate-change mitigation, however, is achieved mainly by cooperator and altruist types stepping up and increasing contributions as the failure looms. Meanwhile, contributions from free riders remain flat throughout the game. This reveals that the mechanisms behind avoiding collective risks depend on an interaction between behavioral type, communication, and timing.
| S-EPMC7395434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This research examines the interaction effect of message framing (gain vs. loss) and perceived susceptibility (i.e., perceived likelihood that one's child is at risk of contracting HPV) on African American parents' intentions to vaccinate their children against HPV. Results of an experiment (N = 193) in which parents were exposed to either a gain-framed or loss-framed message about HPV vaccination revealed a significant interaction between message framing and perceived susceptibility when parents were required to pay for the vaccine. The specific pattern of interaction suggested that parents who perceived their children to be at high risk of contracting HPV were more persuaded by the gain-framed message, whereas those who believed their children to be at low risk of contracting HPV were more persuaded by the loss-framed message. Implications of the findings for HPV vaccination messaging are discussed.
| S-EPMC5568555 | biostudies-other