A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents' (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.
Many Americans fail to get life-saving vaccines each year, and the availability of a vaccine for COVID-19 makes the challenge of encouraging vaccination more urgent than ever. We present a large field experiment (N = 47,306) testing 19 nudges delivered to patients via text message and designed to boost adoption of the influenza vaccine. Our findings suggest that text messages sent prior to a primary care visit can boost vaccination rates by an average of 5%. Overall, interventions performed better when they were 1) framed as reminders to get flu shots that were already reserved for the patient and 2) congruent with the sort of communications patients expected to receive from their healthcare provider (i.e., not surprising, casual, or interactive). The best-performing intervention in our study reminded patients twice to get their flu shot at their upcoming doctor's appointment and indicated it was reserved for them. This successful script could be used as a template for campaigns to encourage the adoption of life-saving vaccines, including against COVID-19.
BACKGROUND: "Message order" and "active participation" could be effective as risk communication methods. "Anticipated regret" (AR) has also been recognized as affecting risk perception and vaccine uptake in vaccination risk communication. We aimed to evaluate the effects of message order and active participation and the interactions between these two interventions on AR for vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a 2 (message order: positive‐negative or negative‐positive) × 2 (message calendar: with or without planning) factorial design study among 81 study participants. The effects of message order and active participation of mothers, using a message calendar, were evaluated on mothers' decision‐making regarding vaccination with Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine for their children. Participants completed questionnaires to evaluate the AR of infection if unvaccinated (anticipated regret of inaction) and of side effects if vaccinated (anticipated regret of action, ARA) twice: immediately after interventions and 1 month later. RESULTS: An interaction between message order and active participation was significant with regard to anticipated regret of inaction immediately after interventions (P = 0.01), but this effect disappeared 1 month after interventions. The message order showed no main effect with regard to ARA. However, the main effect of active participation was marginally significant with regard to ARA 1 month after intervention (P = 0.09); AR over vaccine side effects was lower when vaccination was planned than in the condition without planning. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of message order was hardly detectable in a clinical setting. However, active participation induced by planning may affect AR. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of active participation in decision‐making for vaccination.
Background. We suggest and examine a behavioral approach to increasing seasonal influenza vaccine uptake. Our idea combines behavioral effects generated by a dominated option, together with more traditional tools, such as providing information and recommendations. Methods. Making use of the seasonal nature of the flu, our treatments present participants with 2 options to receive the shot: early in the season, which is recommended and hence "attractive," or later. Three additional layers are examined: 1) mentioning that the vaccine is more likely to run out of stock late in the season, 2) the early shot is free while the late one costs a fee, and 3) the early shot carries a monetary benefit. We compare vaccination intentions in these treatments to those of a control group who were invited to receive the shot regardless of timing. Results. Using a sample of the Israeli adult population (n = 3271), we found positive effects of all treatments on vaccination intentions, and these effects were significant for 3 of the 4 treatments. In addition, the vast majority of those who are willing to vaccinate intend to get the early shot. Conclusions. Introducing 2 options to get vaccinated against influenza (early or late) positively affects intentions to receive the flu shot. In addition, this approach nudges participants to take the shot in early winter, a timing that has been shown to be more cost-effective.
(1) Background: Influenza vaccination uptake in nursing home (NH) workers is uncommon. The aim of this study was to understand the choice architecture of influenza vaccination acceptance or refusal among them and to promote vaccination acceptance using the nudge approach. (2) Methods: In autumn 2019, a nudge intervention with a contextual qualitative analysis of choice architecture of vaccination was performed among the staff of eight Tuscan NHs. In summer 2020, a cross-sectional study including the staff of 111 NHs (8 in the nudge, 103 in the comparison group) was conducted to assess the impact of the nudge intervention in promoting vaccination uptake. (3) Results: Macro-categories of motivations for vaccination uptake that emerged from the qualitative analysis were risk perception, value dimension, and trust, while those regarding refusal were risk perception, distrust, value dimension, and reasons related to one's health. Considering the cross-sectional study, influenza vaccination uptake in the 2018-2019 season was similar in the two groups (23.6% vs. 22.2% respectively, in the nudge and comparison group), but significantly different in the 2019-2020 season: 28% in the nudge vs. 20% in the comparison group. Also, the intention to get the vaccine in the 2020-2021 season was significantly different in the two groups: 37.9% in the nudge and 30.8% in the comparison group. (4) Conclusions: Nudge interventions-simple, fast, low cost-could be effective in promoting vaccination acceptance among NH workers and the analysis of choice architecture could be useful in improving tailored, new nudge interventions aimed at modifying irrational biased and cognitive errors.
<b>Importance: </b>Influenza vaccination rates across the US are low. Because few practices send patient reminders for influenza vaccination, a scalable patient reminder system is needed.<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To evaluate the effect of patient reminders sent via a health care system's electronic health record patient portal on influenza vaccination rates.<b>Design, Setting, and Participants: </b>This pragmatic, 4-arm randomized clinical trial was performed from October 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, across the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) health care system. A total of 164 205 patients in 52 primary care practices who had used the patient portal within 12 months were included.<b>INTERVENTIONS: </b>Patients due for an influenza vaccine were sent a letter via the patient portal of the health care system reminding them about the importance of influenza vaccination, safety of the vaccine, and morbidity associated with influenza. Patients were randomized within primary care practices to 1 of 4 study groups (no reminder [n = 41 070] vs 1 reminder [n = 41 055], 2 reminders [n = 41 046], or 3 reminders [n = 41 034]).<b>Main Outcomes and Measures: </b>The primary outcome was receipt of 1 or more influenza vaccines as documented in the electronic health record, which was supplemented with influenza vaccination data from external sources (eg, pharmacies). Secondary outcomes were influenza vaccination rates among subgroups and influenza vaccinations self-reported by patients in reply to the portal-based query as having been received elsewhere.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 164 205 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [19.6] years; 95 779 [58.3%] female) were randomly allocated to 1 of the 4 study arms. In the primary analysis across all ages and not including patient self-reported vaccinations in reply to portal reminders, influenza vaccination rates were 37.5% for those receiving no reminders, 38.0% for those receiving 1 reminder (P = .008 vs no reminder), 38.2% for those receiving 2 reminders (P = .03 vs no reminder), and 38.2% for those receiving 3 reminders (P = .02 vs no reminder). In the secondary analysis not including patient self-reported vaccinations, among adults aged 18 to 64 years (vaccination rates: 32.0% in the control group, 32.8% in the 1-reminder group, 32.8% in the 2-reminder group, and 32.8% in the 3-reminder group; P = .001), male patients (vaccination rates: 37.3% vs 38.3%, 38.6%, and 38.8%; P = .001), non-Hispanic patients (vaccination rates: 37.6% vs 38.2%, 38.3%, and 38.2%; P = .004), and those who were not vaccinated in the prior 2 years (vaccination rates: 15.3% vs 15.9%, 16.3%, and 16.1%; P < .001), vaccination rates were higher in the portal reminder groups than in the control group; the findings in these 3 subgroups mirrored the findings in the entire population. When self-reported vaccinations received elsewhere were included, influenza vaccination rates were 1.4 to 2.9 percentage points higher in the portal reminder groups, with a dose-response effect (0 reminders: 15 537 [37.8%]; 1 reminder: 16 097 [39.2%]; 2 reminders: 16 426 [40.0%]; and 3 reminders: 16 714 [40.7%]; P < .001).<b>Conclusions and Relevance: </b>Generic patient portal reminders were effective in minimally increasing influenza vaccination rates, but more intensive or more targeted patient motivational strategies appear to be needed.<b>Trial Registration: </b>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03666026.
OBJECTIVES: Incentivising vaccine consent form return may improve vaccine uptake and be seen as less coercive than incentivising vaccination itself. We assessed the acceptability of financial incentives in this context among adolescent females and explored potential mechanisms by which incentives might change behaviour.
DESIGN: Focus groups and analysis of free-text questionnaire responses.
METHODS: Study 1: 36 female secondary students in London (age 13-14) participated in six focus groups exploring the use of incentives in the context of vaccination. Data were analysed thematically. Study 2: was conducted to triangulate the findings of Study 1, by analysing free-text questionnaire responses from 181 female secondary students in London (age 12-13) reporting their opinion of incentivising consent form return. Data from Study 1 was also used to explore perceived potential mechanisms of action by which incentives might encourage consent form return.
RESULTS: Focus group participants had positive attitudes towards incentives, with 61% of free-text responses also expressing this. Most focus group participants thought that incentives would encourage consent form return (18% of free-text respondents spontaneously also mentioned this). While incentivising consent form return was seen as ethical, focus group participants who incorrectly thought that vaccine receipt was being incentivised raised concerns about bribery, although only 4% of free text respondents reported these concerns. Frequently raised mechanisms of action included incentives increasing engagement with, and the perceived value of consent form return.
CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents had positive views of financially incentivising consent form return to promote vaccine uptake, although care must be taken to reduce misconceptions regarding what is being incentivised. Incentivising vaccination was seen as coercive, but incentivising actions that increase the likelihood of vaccination (i.e. consent form return) were not. Incentives may encourage adolescents to return consent forms by helping them engage with this behaviour or increasing its' perceived value.
