Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine development and safety

  1. Alistair Thorpe
  2. Angela Fagerlin
  3. Jorie Butler
  4. Vanessa Stevens
  5. Frank A. Drews
  6. Holly Shoemaker
  7. Marian S. Riddoch
  8. Laura D. Scherer

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Beliefs that the risks from a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the risks from getting COVID-19 and concerns that the vaccine development process was rushed and lacking rigor have been identified as important drivers of hesitancy and refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested whether messages designed to address these beliefs and concerns might promote intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Method

We conducted an online survey fielded between March 8–23, 2021 with US Veteran ( n = 688) and non-Veteran ( n = 387) respondents. In a between-subjects experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to a control group (with no message) or to read one of two intervention messages: 1. a fact-box styled message comparing the risks of getting COVID-19 compared to the vaccine, and 2. a timeline styled message describing the development process of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Results

Most respondents (60%) wanted a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 17% expressed hesitancy and 23% did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The fact-box styled message and the timeline message did not significantly improve vaccination intentions, F (2,358) = 0.86, p = .425, η P 2 = .005, or reduce the time respondents wanted to wait before getting vaccinated, F (2,306) = 0.79, p = .453, η P 2 = .005, compared to no messages.

Discussion

In this experimental study, we did not find that providing messages about vaccine risks and the development process had an impact on respondents’ vaccine intentions. Further research is needed to identify how to effectively address concerns about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the development process and to understand additional factors that influence vaccine intentions.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0272426
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.25.21259519v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.25.21259519: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableA total of 1075 respondents completed the third wave of the study, of which 688 (64%) were United States Veterans; median age of the sample was between 55 and 74 years old; 841 respondents (78%) were male, 819 respondents (76%) were non-Hispanic White, and the median household income was $70,000-$99,999.
    RandomizationRespondent assignment to study conditions was carried out using the built-in randomizer function in Qualtrics’ survey flow.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    A total of 1075 respondents completed the third wave of the study, of which 688 (64%) were United States Veterans; median age of the sample was between 55 and 74 years old; 841 respondents (78%) were male, 819 respondents (76%) were non-Hispanic White, and the median household income was $70,000-$99,999.
    non-Hispanic White
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were performed using RStudio statistical software (RStudio Team, 2021).
    RStudio
    suggested: (RStudio, RRID:SCR_000432)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Despite evidence that self-reports are good predictors of health behaviors (Webb & Sheeran, 2006), it is important that these findings are considered in the context of known limitations of this method (e.g., social desirability). The study design (i.e., US-based recruitment, online, and in English) prevents generalization of the present findings outside of the US and to people who may have limited internet access and lower English proficiency. Furthermore, our sample consists of both Veteran and non-Veteran respondents completing the third (and final) survey of a longitudinal study, which began in December, 2020 and thus are not representative of the general population.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.25.21259519v1 on medRxiv