Dataset Information

Opt-out policy and its improvements promote COVID-19 vaccinations.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

Vaccination uptake is a major strategy to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 and curb the transmission of COVID-19. However, many people remain unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Objective

Using default nudges, the present study examines (a) whether opt-out policy and its improvements could increase intention and attitude to get vaccinated and (b) whether these default effects differ across diverse risk-perception groups.

Method

An online experiment with 1926 unvaccinated Chinese respondents was conducted in February 2021. We measured willingness to be vaccinated after informing opt-in policy, standard opt-out policy, and its five improvements (opt-out education, opt-out opportunity, opt-out social norm, opt-out feedback, and opt-out opportunity). Risk perception of the pandemic of COVID-19 and vaccination were also measured.

Results

(a) Opt-out policy and its improvement (except the opt-out transparency) increased intentions to be vaccinated. Policies with a vaccination default did not weaken people's attitude toward policy and policymakers compared with the opt-in policy, but participants in the transparent improvement group reported lower freedom of choice than those in the opt-out group. (b) Further latent profile analysis revealed four classes underlying risk perception: risk exaggerators, risk deniers, disease-specific risk perceivers, and vaccine-specific risk perceivers. But there was no conclusive evidence that the effect of risk perception differs as a function of defaults.

Conclusions

These findings provide new psychological evidence for formulating more targeted vaccination policies and highlight the importance of risk perception to understand vaccination intentions.

SUBMITTER: Liu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9217684 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Project description:Due to recently proposed changes in the Common Rule regarding the collection of research preferences, there is an increased need for efficient methods to document opt-in research preferences at a population level. Previously, our institution developed an opt-out paper-based workflow that could not be utilized for research in a scalable fashion. This project was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an electronic health record (EHR)-based active opt-in research preferences program. The first phase of implementation required creating and disseminating a patient questionnaire through the EHR portal to populate discreet fields within the EHR indicating patients' preferences for future research study contact (contact) and their willingness to allow anonymised use of excess tissue and fluid specimens (biobank). In the second phase, the questionnaire was presented within a clinic nurse intake workflow in an obstetrical clinic. These permissions were tabulated in registries for use by investigators for feasibility studies and recruitment. The registry was also used for research patient contact management using a new EHR encounter type to differentiate research from clinical encounters. The research permissions questionnaire was sent to 59,670 patients via the EHR portal. Within four months, 21,814 responses (75% willing to participate in biobanking, and 72% willing to be contacted for future research) were received. Each response was recorded within a patient portal encounter to enable longitudinal analysis of responses. We obtained a significantly lower positive response from the 264 females who completed the questionnaire in the obstetrical clinic (55% volunteers for biobank and 52% for contact). We demonstrate that it is possible to establish a research permissions registry using the EHR portal and clinic-based workflows. This patient-centric, population-based, opt-in approach documents preferences in the EHR, allowing linkage of these preferences to health record information.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the effect of default test offers--opt-in, opt-out, and active choice--on the likelihood of acceptance of an HIV test among patients receiving care in an emergency department?MethodsThis was a randomized clinical trial conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital and regional trauma center. Patients aged 13-64 years were randomized to opt-in, opt-out, and active choice HIV test offers. The primary outcome was HIV test acceptance percentage. The Denver Risk Score was used to categorize patients as being at low, intermediate, or high risk of HIV infection.Study answer and limitations38.0% (611/1607) of patients in the opt-in testing group accepted an HIV test, compared with 51.3% (815/1628) in the active choice arm (difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval 9.8% to 16.7%) and 65.9% (1031/1565) in the opt-out arm (difference 27.9%, 24.4% to 31.3%). Compared with active choice testing, opt-out testing led to a 14.6 (11.1 to 18.1) percentage point increase in test acceptance. Patients identified as being at intermediate and high risk were more likely to accept testing than were those at low risk in all arms (difference 6.4% (3.4% to 9.3%) for intermediate and 8.3% (3.3% to 13.4%) for high risk). The opt-out effect was significantly smaller among those reporting high risk behaviors, but the active choice effect did not significantly vary by level of reported risk behavior. Patients consented to inclusion in the study after being offered an HIV test, and inclusion varied slightly by treatment assignment. The study took place at a single county hospital in a city that is somewhat unique with respect to HIV testing; although the test acceptance percentages themselves might vary, a different pattern for opt-in versus active choice versus opt-out test schemes would not be expected.What this paper addsActive choice is a distinct test regimen, with test acceptance patterns that may best approximate patients' true preferences. Opt-out regimens can substantially increase HIV testing, and opt-in schemes may reduce testing, compared with active choice testing.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by grant NIA 1RC4AG039078 from the National Institute on Aging. The full dataset is available from the corresponding author. Consent for data sharing was not obtained, but the data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01377857.