Vaccine hesitancy and cognitive biases: Evidence for tailored communication with parents.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Vaccine hesitancy (VH) remains worldwide a reason of concern. Most of the vaccination education strategies followed a "fact-based" approach, based on the assumption that decision making is a rational process, without considering the influence of cognitive biases and heuristics. Our study aimed at identifying factors involved in the parents' vaccination choice to inform and shape communication interventions.Methods
We conducted an online national survey among parents between November 2020 and April 2021. The questionnaire consisted of 42 items organised in 4 parts: (1) personal information, (2) cognitive biases and risk propension, (3) Analytic Thinking (Cognitive Reflection Test), (4) conspiracy mentality, health literacy, and VH. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify latent variables underlying the 19 items related to the 6 cognitive biases. Factors were categorised in quintiles and the corresponding pseudo-continuous variables used as predictors of the VH. Logistic regression model was applied to assess the association of the VH with factors, conspiracy mentality and risk propension. We adjusted for age, gender, economic status, and education levels.Results
The study included 939 parents, 764 women (81.4%), 69.8% had a degree or higher level of education. Considering cognitive biases, four factors explaining 54% of the total variance were identified and characterised as: fear of the side effects of vaccines (scepticism factor); carelessness of the risk and consequences of infections (denial factor); optimistic attitude (optimistic bias factor); preference for natural products (naturalness bias factor). All factors were positively associated to VH (p < 0.001) as were conspiracy mentality (p = 0.007) and risk propension (p = 0.002).Conclusions
This study confirmed the need to amplify the model used to analyse the VH considering cognitive biases as important factor affecting the parents' decision making. These results may be useful to design personalised communication interventions regarding vaccines and vaccination.
SUBMITTER: Casigliani V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9289735 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy has been a growing challenge for public health in recent decades. Among factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy, concerns regarding vaccine safety and Adverse Events (AEs) play the leading role. Moreover, cognitive biases are critical in connecting such concerns to vaccine hesitancy behaviors, but their role has not been comprehensively studied. In this study, our first objective is to address concerns regarding vaccine AEs to increase vaccine acceptance. Our second objective is to identify the potential cognitive biases connecting vaccine hesitancy concerns to vaccine-hesitant behaviors and identify the mechanism they get triggered in the vaccine decision-making process.MethodsFirst, to mitigate concerns regarding AEs, we quantitatively analyzed the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2011 to 2018 and provided evidence regarding the non-severity of the AEs that can be used as a communicable summary to increase vaccine acceptance. Second, we focused on the vaccination decision-making process. We reviewed cognitive biases and vaccine hesitancy literature to identify the most potential cognitive biases that affect vaccine hesitancy and categorized them adopting the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).ResultsOur results show that the top frequent AEs are expected mild reactions like injection site erythema (4.29%), pyrexia (3.66%), and injection site swelling (3.21%). 94.5% of the reports are not serious and the average population-based serious reporting rate over the 8 years was 25.3 reports per 1 million population. We also identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect people's vaccination decision-making and nudge them toward vaccine hesitancy. We categorized these biases based on the factors that trigger them and discussed how they contribute to vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionsThis paper provided an evidence-based communicable summary of VAERS. As the most trusted sources of vaccine information, health practitioners can use this summary to provide evidence-based vaccine information to vaccine decision-makers (patients/parents) and mitigate concerns over vaccine safety and AEs. In addition, we identified 15 potential cognitive biases that might affect the vaccination decision-making process and nudge people toward vaccine hesitancy. Any plan, intervention, and message to increase vaccination uptake should be modified to decrease the effect of these potential cognitive biases.
| S-EPMC8444164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Announcement Approach using presumptive announcements increases human papillomavirus vaccine uptake. This study seeks to understand the impact of the final Announcement Approach steps-easing parents' vaccine concerns and then encouraging them to get human papillomavirus vaccine for their children-on parents' human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the vaccine's benefits.MethodsIn 2017-2018, investigators recruited an online national sample of 1,196 U.S. parents of children aged 9-17 years who had not yet completed the human papillomavirus vaccine series. Following the steps of the Announcement Approach, participants viewed brief videos of a pediatrician announcing that a child was due for human papillomavirus vaccine (shown to all the parents). In the 2 × 2 experiment, parents saw (1) a video of the pediatrician attempting to ease a concern that the parent had raised earlier in the survey (Ease video), (2) a video of the pediatrician encouraging the parent to get their child vaccinated (Encourage video), (3) both videos, or (4) neither of the videos. Data analysis was conducted in spring 2020.ResultsSeeing the Ease video message led to lower human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy than not seeing it (mean=2.71, SD=1.29 vs mean=2.97, SD=1.33; p<0.001). The beneficial impact of easing concerns on lower vaccine hesitancy was explained by higher confidence (p<0.05). By contrast, the Encourage video had no impact on human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy or confidence.ConclusionsAddressing parents' concerns can decrease human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy and increase confidence. On the basis of these findings, the Announcement Approach retained its emphasis on announcing that children are due for vaccination and easing parent concerns.
| S-EPMC8217248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the link between vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, it is critical to examine the cognitive processes that contribute to the development of vaccine hesitancy, especially among parents of adolescents. We conducted a secondary analysis of baseline data from a two-phase randomized trial on human papillomavirus to investigate how vaccine hesitancy and intent to vaccinate are associated with six decision-making factors: base rate neglect, conjunction fallacy, sunk cost bias, present bias, risk aversion, and information avoidance. We recruited 1,413 adults residing in the United States with at least one daughter aged 9-17 years old through an online survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Vaccine hesitancy, intent to vaccinate, and susceptibility to cognitive biases was measured through a series of brief questionnaires. 1,400 participants were in the final analyzed sample. Most participants were white (74.1%), female (71.6%), married (75.3%), and had a college or graduate/professional education (88.8%). Conjunction fallacy, sunk cost bias, information avoidance, and present bias may be associated with vaccine hesitancy. Intent to vaccinate may be associated with information avoidance. These results suggest that cognitive biases play a role in developing parental vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related behavior.
| S-EPMC7227686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This cross-sectional survey was designed to assess the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy and to identify factors associated among a randomly selected sample of parents. A questionnaire was self-administered from October to December 2017 to a sample of parents of children aged 2 to 6 years attending five randomly selected pre-schools in the geographic area of Naples, Italy. Out of the 727 selected parents, 437 returned the questionnaires for a response rate of 60.1%. The median of Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines Survey (PACV) score among participants was 45.8 with a total of 141 parents (34.7%) scored a value ?50 and were defined hesitant about the childhood vaccinations. Vaccine hesitancy was significantly more common among those who were concerned and among those were not sure that any one of the childhood shots might not be safe, among those who were concerned that their children might have a serious side effect from a shot, among those who were concerned that a shot might not prevent the disease, among those who delayed and refused at least a shot of vaccine for their children, and in those who are not sure and uncertain in the pediatrician. More than half of parents (53.8%) expressed a desire to receive additional information about the childhood vaccinations. Parents who were not sure and uncertain that to follow the recommended shot schedule is a good idea for their children and those who were parents of first-born children were more likely to need additional information. This study finds a high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among parents suggesting that in the immunization program is necessary to achieve a higher quality of the relationship between pediatricians and the community.
| S-EPMC6067864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role of parents' emotional competencies on vaccine hesitancy and decision making has been seldom examined. Two studies investigated the relationship between parents' attitudes towards childhood vaccines and self-reported behavior (Study 1) and between parents' emotional competence and attitudes towards vaccines (Study 2). In Study 1, predictors of temporal, partial, or complete vaccine refusal (having voluntarily postponed/forgone some/all vaccines) were examined in 2778 parents. In Study 2, psychological predictors of the attitude towards vaccines were examined in 593 parents, using the Profile of Emotional Competence and the valence of mental images spontaneously associated with the term "vaccine". In Study 1, attitudes were aggregated in three independent factors (concerns about vaccine safety; diseases prevented by vaccines; and naturalistic views) that independently predicted vaccine refusal. In Study 2, a significant mediational analysis showed a positive indirect effect of intrapersonal emotional competences on attitudes towards vaccines, through mental images associated with the word "vaccine". Parents' intrapersonal emotional competences affected all dimensions of attitudes towards vaccines, suggesting that being able to manage, identify, and recognize one's own emotions is central to vaccine acceptance. These findings suggest that intervention strategies, rather than stressing the pro-social benefits of vaccinating, should focus on aspects related to one's own emotions.
| S-EPMC8005154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection. HPV is responsible for cancer of cervix uteri. Despite its safety and immunogenicity, HPV vaccine hesitancy is one of the most challenging topics that pediatricians face.MethodsWe aimed to describe the impact of knowledge, attitude, and practice towards vaccines in general, on practice related to HPV vaccination in Lebanon. A questionnaire addressed to parents of students (3-18 years of age) was distributed in 2 public and 2 private schools randomly selected from the greater Beirut area during the school year 2017-2018. Questionnaires covered knowledge, attitude, and practices of vaccination in general and HPV vaccine in particular.ResultsOut of 400 distributed questionnaires, 306 (76.5%) were returned. Of the 185 parents aware of HPV vaccine, 60% hadn't given or were not planning to give the HPV vaccine to their children. Of parents not in favor of HPV vaccine, 7.5 thought that vaccines aren't necessary versus none among those in favor of HPV vaccine(p = 0.02). Thirteen percent of those not in favor of HPV vaccine thought that vaccines are not safe versus 2.7% in the group in favor (p = 0.02). An effect of gender on vaccine acceptance was noted: mothers vs fathers and daughters vs sons. Lack of recommendation by pediatricians and the thought that too little is known about the vaccine were the most selected reasons for parents not wanting to vaccinate their children against HPV, whereas cost and religious and cultural beliefs seemed to have no impact.ConclusionMost parents in our study did not vaccinate or weren't willing to vaccinate their children against HPV even when they were in favor of vaccines in general. Physician recommendation was shown to be one of the most important predictors of vaccination. Effort should be put into educating parents about the importance of the vaccine and its well-established safety and efficacy regardless of gender. Lebanese physicians should also be educated and empowered to recommend HPV vaccine more strongly and consistently.
| S-EPMC10718448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleVaccines save lives. Despite the undisputed value of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy continues to be a major global challenge, particularly throughout the COVID-19 global pandemic. Since vaccination decisions are counter-intuitive and cognitively demanding, we propose that vaccine hesitancy is associated with executive function-a group of high-level cognitive skills including attentional control, working memory, inhibition, self-regulation, cognitive flexibility, and strategic planning.ObjectiveWe set out to test (i) whether vaccine hesitancy is driven by individual differences in executive function beyond established socio-demographic factors (e.g., education, political orientation, gender, ethnicity, age, religiosity) and depressed mood, and (ii) whether this relationship is exacerbated by situational stress.MethodsTwo studies were conducted with U.S. residents. Using a cross-sectional design, Study 1 examined the associations between executive function, socio-demographic factors, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, trust in health authorities, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Using an experimental design, Study 2 focused solely on unvaccinated individuals and tested the interactive effect of executive function and stress on willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We used ordinal logistic regressions to analyze the data.ResultsIndividual differences in executive function predicted participants' COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, trust in health authorities, and their willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. Importantly, the unique contribution of executive function to vaccine hesitancy could not be explained by socio-demographic factors or depressed mood. Furthermore, Study 2 revealed that weaker executive function had detrimental effects on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and trust in health authorities mainly under heightened stress.ConclusionsIndividual differences in executive function and situational stress jointly impact COVID-19 vaccination decisions and need to be considered together when designing health communications aimed at reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Interventions that lower stress and promote trust have the potential to increase vaccine acceptance, especially for individuals with weaker executive function.
| S-EPMC8920576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Having a vaccine available does not necessarily imply that it will be used. Indeed, uptake rates for existing vaccines against infectious diseases have been fluctuating in recent years. Literature suggests that vaccine hesitancy may be grounded in deeply rooted intuitions or values, which can be modelled using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). We examine the respective prominence of the MFT dimensions in government communication regarding childhood vaccinations and explore its effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. We measure the MFT dimension loading of the vaccination information brochures from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) between 2011-2019 and connect this information with the electronic national immunisation register to investigate if the use of moral foundations in government communication has a measurable effect on vaccination uptake. We find the largest positive effect for the dimensions Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression and suggestive evidence in favour of a small positive effect for Purity/Degradation. Conversely, Loyalty/Betrayal actually has a negative effect on vaccination rates. For the dimension Harm/Care, we find no significant effect. While Purity/Degradation and Harm/Care appear to be the two most frequently used moral foundations by RIVM, these dimensions have in fact no or only a minor effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. Reducing the use of these moral foundations may be the first step towards optimising government communication in this context. Instead, formulations activating the moral foundations Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression appear to have positive effects on vaccination uptake.
| S-EPMC8577733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: In autumn 2021, there was a surge of COVID-19 infections in Austria, and vaccination coverage stagnated at a below-average level compared to the rest of Europe. Surveys showed that both children and adolescents were the main drivers of the rising infection rates and that vaccination numbers were particularly low in this age group. This was due to widespread vaccination skepticism and hesitancy among parents of unvaccinated children and adolescents. Methods: Here, we describe a novel intervention concept that allowed us to efficiently tackle parental vaccine hesitancy. We designed an intervention series that followed a reproducible format based on online face-to-face seminars in groups of a maximum of twenty people. Each seminar included an anonymous online questionnaire for internal quality control. Moreover, we assessed the motives of parental vaccine hesitancy and asked participants to rate subjective vaccine willingness for their children on a scale of zero to ten. Results: Within 8 weeks, more than 580 people participated in the seminar series. We found that concerns about the side effects of the vaccine were the predominant motive of vaccination hesitancy among the study population. Overall, the intervention could successfully increase the median parental vaccination willingness of participants from a score of five to eight. We identified tree hesitancy motives (distrust towards the pharmaceutical industry, the government, or feelings of restriction from personal freedom) that were associated with below-average vaccination willingness and significant lower increase. Conclusion: With this study we analyzed motives driving COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among parents of unvaccinated children and reasons of parents to restrain their children from getting vaccinated. The intervention method described here, could effectively address individual concerns on a personal level while at the same time reach a large number of people across geographical and language barriers. Thereby we could significantly increase subjective vaccination willingness of the participants. Our approach is easy to apply, highly cost-effective, and can be used to tackle any kind of medical misinformation.
| S-EPMC10493290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is emerging as a significant challenge in many parts of the world in the fight against the COVID19 pandemic. The continued infection amongst the unvaccinated can lead to a heightened risk of further virus mutation, exposing even those vaccinated to new virus strains. Therefore, there are social benefits in minimising vaccine hesitancy. The objective of this study is to assess the level of COVID19 vaccine hesitancy in South Africa, identify the socio-economic patterns in vaccine hesitancy and highlight insights from the national survey that can inform the development of a COVID-19 vaccination acceptance communication campaign.MethodsThe study uses the nationally representative National Income Dynamics Study - Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (NIDS-CRAM) survey. The analysis combines univariate and bivariate statistics, as well as multivariate regression models like binomial/ordinal and multinomial logit.ResultsThe study finds that vaccine acceptance is lower than that of non-pharmaceutical intervention like face-mask use. Only 55% fully accept the vaccine, while a further 16% are moderately accepting of vaccines. Together, vaccine acceptance is estimated at 70.8%, and vaccine hesitancy against COVID19 is estimated at 29.2% amongst the adult South African population. The study has identified the perceived risk of infection with the mediating role of efficacy as a key predictor of vaccine intention. Higher awareness of COVID19 related information and higher household income are correlated with lower vaccine hesitancy. The non-black African population group has significantly high vaccine hesitancy compared to black Africans.ConclusionsThere are other significant differences across socio-economic and demographic variables in vaccine hesitancy. From a communication perspective, it is imperative to continue risk messaging, hand in hand with clearer information on the efficacy of the vaccines.
| S-EPMC8596859 | biostudies-literature