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

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.09.22274840: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: All procedures in this pre-registered study (aspredicted.org/LDX_2ZL) were approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, 2021/871), and all participants provided informed consent.
    Consent: All procedures in this pre-registered study (aspredicted.org/LDX_2ZL) were approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, 2021/871), and all participants provided informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationStratification and randomisation (via random number generation) occurred via inbuilt code.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisSample size was calculated via an a priori power analysis (95% power, alpha=.05, effect size f2=0.02) for a separate concurrent study run that contained more predictors (N=9), and therefore required more power (see study pre-registration).

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations of the study include the measurement of intention, but not uptake. While intention has been found to predict vaccination21-24, 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 Australia25, the present research focused on increasing intention among those already receiving a primary course of COVID-19 vaccination. However, these results do not speak to the effect of framing on those never vaccinated. Investigation of framing on vaccine intention at all points of the vaccination programme would provide a more comprehensive account of the effect of framing on vaccine intentions in general. In summary, a brief online intervention engaging participants in side effect estimation before presenting positively framed side effect information can increase booster vaccine intention. Given the ease with which Positive Framing can be implemented, combined with the fact that the presentation of statistical information in this format does not violate patient informed consent9, the potential exists for framing of this type to make a real difference in improving societal protection from COVID-19 through reduced vaccine hesitancy.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.