The Application and Outcome Evaluation of a Social Marketing Intervention to Increase Seasonal Influenza Vaccination among University Students

Abstract

Seasonal flu vaccination rates among university students are exceedingly low and research focused on voluntarily influencing vaccination uptake is limited. This study outlines the development, implementation, and evaluation of a theory-driven social marketing vaccination intervention following the co-create-build-engage (CBE) framework. This study drew upon a pre-intervention segmentation study and co-created interventions targeted at receptive segments. The intervention delivered a significant 343% increase in vaccination rates using a difference-in-difference analysis. Online communication channels effectively engaged students to register for and receive their flu vaccine Almost 90% of students who received vaccinations signed up in the first two weeks of the intervention program indicating that those who can be motivated will act early in the flu season. Financial incentives, as found in previous studies, were confirmed as highly effective in increasing awareness and influencing vaccination uptake behaviours. Friend referral incentives were also found to be influential in motivating vaccination uptake. Suggestions are provided for future research and practical implementation of interventions on university campuses to motivate flu vaccination and other health behaviours.

Using Social Marketing to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Case Study from the “AUBe Vaccinated” Campaign

“…This strategy resulted in more than 40,000 clicks on the vaccination booking system link between 20 August and 17 September 2021. A similar scenario was seen in the study by Lee et al, as different communication strategies were used to reach more students, including emails, banner ads on the e-learning portal posters, panels, and broadcasted SMS messages [ 21 ]. Banner ads on the e-learning portal and email were the most effective communication channel, sharing more than 80% of total registrations throughout the campaign period [ 21 ].…”

“…In line with a concurrent cross-sectional study [ 31 ], most of the sample favored the vaccine, with only 2% considered “vaccine-hesitant.” As such, we focused on facilitating access to vaccines for those “in favor” through adopting walk-in vaccinations, increasing the capacity of the COVID-19 vaccination center, and developing an online booking system later to organize vaccination schedules and avoid long waiting lines. A similar method was used to segment Hong Kong university students to promote seasonal flu vaccine [ 21 ] and somehow aligned with the systematic segmentation of a national sample of Australians. The former study found that 52% of the total vaccinated individuals were from the “convinced” segment, and 35% were open to being persuaded [ 21 ].…”

“…A similar method was used to segment Hong Kong university students to promote seasonal flu vaccine [ 21 ] and somehow aligned with the systematic segmentation of a national sample of Australians. The former study found that 52% of the total vaccinated individuals were from the “convinced” segment, and 35% were open to being persuaded [ 21 ].…”

“…More recently, social marketing campaigns in rural areas in the US increased HPV uptake by 34% in 3 months [ 19 , 20 ]. A more recent study reported the successful implementation of a social marketing campaign to promote seasonal flu vaccination at a university in Hong Kong [ 21 ]. Another case study described a comprehensive social marketing plan that could be utilized to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among senior citizens of rural India [ 22 ].…”

Co-creating and evaluating social marketing programs: a living lab approach

“…It does so by using, analysing and enhancing Living Labs as a methodology (Dell'Era and Landoni, 2014; Hossain et al , 2019; Ståhlbröst and Holst, 2012) to co-create, implement and evaluate social marketing programs. The program presented in this paper contributes to this debate by involving diverse key stakeholders at different time points (when) of program creation and evaluation (where), for solution co-creation (Lee et al , 2022; Durl et al , 2021).…”