A randomized controlled trial of a video intervention shows evidence of increasing COVID-19 vaccination intention

  1. Leah S. Witus
  2. Erik Larson

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Increasing acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is imperative for public health. Previous research on educational interventions to overcome vaccine hesitancy have shown mixed effects in increasing vaccination intention, although much of this work has focused on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccination. In this study, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether vaccination intention changes after viewing an animated YouTube video explaining how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work. We exposed participants to one of four interventions–watching the video with a male narrator, watching the same video with a female narrator, reading the text of the transcript of the video, or receiving no information (control group). We found that participants who watched the version of the video with a male narrator expressed statistically significant increased vaccination intention compared to the control group. The video with a female narrator had more variation in results. As a whole, there was a non-significant increased vaccination intention when analyzing all participants who saw the video with a female narrator; however, for politically conservative participants there was decreased vaccination intention for this intervention compared to the control group at a threshold between being currently undecided and expressing probable interest. These results are encouraging for the ability of interventions as simple as YouTube videos to increase vaccination propensity, although the inconsistent response to the video with a female narrator demonstrates the potential for bias to affect how certain groups respond to different messengers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0267580
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254433: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254433v1 on medRxiv