Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions

Jensen, Ulrich Thy; Ayers, Stephanie L.; Koskan, Alexis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265736

Cited by 43 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, previous research indicates that revealed intentions, based on participants' clicks, constitute strong predictors of actual behavior (Godin & Kok, 1996;Webb & Sheeran, 2006;de Bruin et al, 2012). Our expectation is also derived from previous research (Jensen et al, 2021), which indicates that up to 90% of individuals keep their vaccination appointments and actually show up (Dai et al, 2021). Following this logic, we estimate that the control letter alone has led to about 908 actual vaccinations and the treatment letter to 1210 actual vaccinations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Increasing COVID-19 vaccination intentions: a field experiment on psychological ownership

Keppeler

Sievert²,

Jilke³

2022

Behav. Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing availability of life-saving vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, government agencies face the challenge of promoting vaccine uptake. Thus, encouraging vaccine uptake marks an urgent policy challenge in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. This study builds on the theory of psychological ownership to design a behaviorally inspired local government vaccination campaign. We conducted a large-scale, cluster-randomized field experiment (N = 27,298 residents nested in 6,442 addresses) delivered to all registered residents of a German municipality via an official mailing campaign. The campaign included a psychological ownership intervention designed to boost residents’ intentions to get vaccinated – measured through unique link clicks on a municipal website where people can schedule a COVID-19 vaccination appointment. Findings suggest that adding possessive pronouns (i.e., ‘YOUR vaccination’) increases vaccination intentions by 39%, or 2.5 percentage points (p < 0.0001 [95% CI = 1.8%, 3.3%], control letter: 6.4%, treatment letter: 8.9%). The discussion outlines the value of using psychological ownership-based nudge interventions to increase vaccine uptake and other desirable behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Increasing COVID-19 vaccination intentions: a field experiment on psychological ownership

Keppeler

Sievert²,

Jilke³

2022

Behav. Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given global differences in booster policy, cross-cultural replication of results is required to ensure results are not contextually limited to the UK. While vaccine intention has been demonstrated to be a strong predictor of vaccine uptake (e.g., [51][52][53]), including for COVID-19 vaccination [54], we do not assume that the two are synonymous (e.g., [55]). While beyond the scope of the present study, we recommend that future research incorporate longitudinal designs where the rate of conversion from intention to vaccine uptake can be tracked, as well as consider the effect of framing on those under 18 years of age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive Attribute Framing Increases COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Intention for Unfamiliar Vaccines

Barnes

Colagiuri

2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive framing has been proposed as an intervention to increase COVID-19 vaccination intentions. However, available research has examined fictitious or unfamiliar treatments. This pre-registered study (aspredicted#78369) compared the effect of standard negatively framed EU patient information leaflets (PILs), with new positively framed PILs, on booster intentions (measured pre- and post-intervention) for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. A representative sample of 1222 UK-based adults was randomised to one of six groups in a factorial design with framing (Positive vs. Negative) and vaccine familiarity (same (as previous), familiar, unfamiliar) as factors. The benefit of positive framing was hypothesised to be strongest for the least familiar vaccine (Moderna). Framing was moderated by familiarity, where only the unfamiliar vaccine showed a benefit of positive relative to negative Framing. Framing and familiarity also interacted with baseline Intention with the effect of framing on the unfamiliar vaccine especially pronounced at low baseline Intent. Conversely, standard negative framing appeared to increase intentions for familiar vaccines at low baseline intent. Findings provide important evidence that positive framing could improve vaccine uptake globally when switches or new developments require individuals to receive less familiar vaccines. Positive framing of familiar vaccines, however, should be treated with caution until better understood.

show abstract

“…Limitations of the study include the measurement of intention, but not uptake. While intention has been found to predict vaccination [21][22][23][24] , longitudinal research is needed to directly assess the role of framing on actual uptake, as well as the longevity of the framing effect among those yet to receive a booster vaccine. Relevant to the lag in booster uptake in Australia 25 , the present research focused on increasing intention among those already receiving a primary course of COVID-19 vaccination.…”

Section: Secondary-predictors: Mediationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of side effect framing on COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions in an Australian sample

Barnes

Faasse

Colagiuri

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of presenting positively attribute-framed side effect information on COVID-19 booster vaccine intention relative to standard negatively-framed wording and a no-intervention control.Design setting and participantsA representative sample of Australian adults (N=1,204) were randomised to one of six conditions within a factorial design: Framing (Positive; Negative; Control) * Vaccine (Familiar (Pfizer); Unfamiliar (Moderna)).InterventionNegative Framing involved presenting the likelihood of experiencing side effects (e.g., heart inflammation is very rare, 1 in every 80,000 will be affected), whereas Positive Framing involved presenting the same information but as the likelihood of not experiencing side effects (e.g., 79,999 in every 80,000 will not be affected).Primary OutcomeBooster vaccine intention measured pre- and post-intervention.ResultsPositive Framing (M=75.7, SE=0.9, 95% CI[73.9, 77.4]) increased vaccine intention relative to Negative Framing (M=70.7, SE=0.9, 95% CI[68.9, 72.4]) overall (F(1, 1192)=4.68, p=.031, ηp2=.004). Framing interacted with Vaccine and Baseline Intention (F(2, 1192)=6.18, p=.002, ηp2=.01). Positive Framing was superior, or at least equal, to Negative Framing and Control at increasing Booster Intention, irrespective of the participants pre-intervention level of intent. Side effect worry and perceived severity mediated the effect of Positive vs. Negative Framing across vaccines.ConclusionPositive framing of side effect information appears superior for increasing vaccine intent relative to the standard negative wording currently used.Pre-registrationSee: aspredicted.org/LDX_2ZL

show abstract

Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions

Cited by 43 publications

References 52 publications

Increasing COVID-19 vaccination intentions: a field experiment on psychological ownership

Increasing COVID-19 vaccination intentions: a field experiment on psychological ownership

Positive Attribute Framing Increases COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Intention for Unfamiliar Vaccines

The impact of side effect framing on COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions in an Australian sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About