The effects of framing and action instructions on whether older adults obtain flu shots.

McCaul, Kevin D.; Johnson, Rebecca J.; Rothman, Alexander J.

doi:10.1037/0278-6133.21.6.624

Cited by 81 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with previous studies finding mixed effects of lossframed messages and fear appeals on vaccination and other preventive health behaviors. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40] However, we additionally find a danger-priming effect in which both a dramatic narrative about measles and images of sick children increased misperceptions about MMR. Finally, no intervention increased intent to vaccinate among parents who are the least favorable toward vaccines (those with more favorable attitudes were extremely likely to intend to vaccinate, reducing the scope for a positive effect).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…33 Despite significant interest in applying this approach to health, 34 only a handful of experiments have done so for vaccines. [35][36][37][38] In addition, there are many ways to communicate such dangers, including text, visuals, and narrative accounts. The relative merits of these approaches for vaccine promotion are not clear, especially given the risk that fear appeals or disturbing messages will backfire.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of messages designed to reduce vaccine misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR). METHODS: A Web-based nationally representative 2-wave survey experiment was conducted with 1759 parents age 18 years and older residing in the United States who have children in their household age 17 years or younger (conducted June–July 2011). Parents were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 interventions: (1) information explaining the lack of evidence that MMR causes autism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (2) textual information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement; (3) images of children who have diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine; (4) a dramatic narrative about an infant who almost died of measles from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet; or to a control group. RESULTS: None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child. Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Current public health communications about vaccines may not be effective. For some parents, they may actually increase misperceptions or reduce vaccination intention. Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive. More study of pro-vaccine messaging is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, research has yielded inconsistent results [6][7][8][9][10][11]. The first aim of the current study is to examine the effectiveness of gain-versus loss-framed messages in promoting parental HPV vaccination uptake intentions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irish mothers’ intentions to have daughters receive the HPV vaccine

Fahy

Desmond

2010

Ir J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most cases of cervical cancer are associated with human paillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18. This study examined the effect of message framing on mother's intentions to obtain HPV vaccination for their teenage daughters and investigated predictors of HPV vaccination intentions. Seventy two mothers of daughters in the 8 to 16 years age group were randomly assigned to read either a gain-framed (describing the benefits of receiving the vaccine) or a loss-framed (describing the costs of not receiving the vaccine) message and completed measures assessing their intention to have their daughter/s vaccinated, normative beliefs, attitudes and perceived behavioural control. Awareness of HPV was low but intentions to vaccinate were high. There was no effect of message frame on vaccination intentions. Attitudes toward HPV vaccination and the influence of both peers and medical professionals are important factors in HPV vaccine acceptability.3

show abstract

“…1 Factors that are statistically associated with persons receiving flu shots can be broadly classified into 4 categories: demographic factors, [2][3][4][5][6] health behaviors, [2][3][4]7,8 health service utilization, 3,10 -13 and health care delivery system features. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] A list of some of these factors is presented in Table 1. Because most studies evaluate only a few of these factors, it is difficult to determine the relative impact of any single factor in predicting community flu shot rates compared with the effects of other statistically significant factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Influenza Immunization in Persons over Age 65

Xakellis¹

2005

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Numerous individual characteristics have been found to be associated with rates of obtaining flu shots. This study creates a predictive model that assesses the relative impact of each of these factors on increasing rates of flu shots in a population.Methods: The Medicare beneficiary survey from 1998 and 1999 was used. Sixteen factors present in 1998 were compared between subjects who did and who did not receive flu shots. Significant factors were then used in a logistic regression to predict the probability of receiving a flu shot in 1998 and 1999.Results: Seven demographic and 7 health status measures were significantly different between subjects who did and who did not receive flu shots in 1998. Logistic regression showed that twelve of these variables were associated with a subject receiving a flu shot in 1998 and explained 11.4% of the variability in who did and who did not receive a flu shot. For the following year, 1999, 7 measures were significantly associated with receiving a flu shot and explained 64% of the variability in who did and who did not receive a flu shot. One variable, if the subject had received a flu shot in 1998, was highly predictive of a subject receiving a flu shot in 1999, explaining 63% of the observed variability in who did and who did not receive a flu shot in 1999.

show abstract

The effects of framing and action instructions on whether older adults obtain flu shots.

Cited by 81 publications

References 14 publications

Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial

Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial

Irish mothers’ intentions to have daughters receive the HPV vaccine

Predictors of Influenza Immunization in Persons over Age 65

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About