Positive Attribute Framing Increases COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Intention for Unfamiliar Vaccines
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
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.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.25.22269855: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: After screening, 1896 participants provided electronic consent and 1459 completed the experiment.
IRB: The experiment was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Stratified randomisation to the six experimental groups occurred at this point using the inbuilt Qualtrics randomisation function. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis Sample size (estimated N=1200) was calculated based on an a priori power analysis (95% power, alpha=.05, effect size f2=0.02) for a separate study run concurrently that contained more predictor variables (N=9), and therefore required more power, than the study presented here … SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.25.22269855: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: After screening, 1896 participants provided electronic consent and 1459 completed the experiment.
IRB: The experiment was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Stratified randomisation to the six experimental groups occurred at this point using the inbuilt Qualtrics randomisation function. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis Sample size (estimated N=1200) was calculated based on an a priori power analysis (95% power, alpha=.05, effect size f2=0.02) for a separate study run concurrently that contained more predictor variables (N=9), and therefore required more power, than the study presented here (further details are contained in the study pre-registration form). 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:This is consistent with previous research39,50–53 and highlights limitations with the current format of communicating side effect information. It was interesting to note that an additional reduction in accuracy was also observed for the positive frame, which did not interact with familiarity. However, patterns within the data were inconsistent, with reduced accuracy associated with the Unfamiliar vaccine appearing exacerbated for verbal prevalence categories but ameliorated for frequency estimates. As such, it is unclear whether positive framing has the potential to undermine informed consent16 by reducing accuracy concerning side effect prevalence. Further, because the present study employed genuine PILs, the side effects participants were required to judge differed across vaccine types. As such, the study was designed only to test for general inaccuracies in side effect representation and not systematic over- or under-estimation. Experimental studies are therefore needed to assess precisely how any inaccuracies associated with positively framed COVID-19 vaccine information manifest. The primary strength of the present study is the application of attribute framing to real COVID-19 vaccines with real PILs. The PILs employed here are displayed on government and NHS websites in the UK, forming a primary official source of information regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Our findings therefore have real-world implications, demonstrating that the wording of PILs can directly impact th...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
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.
-