Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Excluding numeric side-effect information produces lower vaccine intentions.
Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany; Lawrence, Eliza R; Schulkin, Jay; Peters, Ellen.
  • Shoots-Reinhard B; Center for Science Research Communication, School of Journalism and Communication, 1275 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, United States; Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, 1835 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, United States. Electronic address: Shoots-reinhard.1@osu.edu.
  • Lawrence ER; Center for Science Research Communication, School of Journalism and Communication, 1275 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, United States.
  • Schulkin J; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Box 356460, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.
  • Peters E; Center for Science Research Communication, School of Journalism and Communication, 1275 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, United States; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, 1227 University of Oregon, 1451 Onyx Street, Eugene, OR 97403, United States.
Vaccine ; 40(31): 4262-4269, 2022 07 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1900246
ABSTRACT
Encouraging vaccine uptake is important to reducing the impact of infectious disease. However, negative attitudes and vaccine hesitancy, due in part to worry about side effects, are obstacles to achieving high vaccination rates. Provided vaccine information sheets typically include a list of side effects without numeric information about their likelihoods, but providing such numbers may yield benefits. We investigated the effect of providing numeric information about side-effect likelihood (e.g., "1%") and verbal labels (e.g., "uncommon") on intentions to get a hypothetical vaccine, reasons for the vaccination decision, and risk overestimation. In a diverse, online, convenience sample (N = 595), providing numeric information increased vaccine intentions-70% of those who received numeric information were predicted to be moderately or extremely likely to vaccinate compared to only 54% of those who did not receive numeric information (p<.001), controlling for age, gender, race, education, and political ideology. Participants receiving numeric information also were less likely to overestimate side-effect likelihood. Verbal labels had additional benefits when included with numeric information, particularly among the vaccine hesitant. For these participants, verbal labels increased vaccine intentions when included with numeric information (but not in its absence). Among the vaccine-hesitant, 43% of those provided numeric information and verbal labels were predicted to be moderately or extremely likely to get vaccinated vs. only 24% of those given a list of side effects (p<.001). We conclude that the standard practice of not providing numeric information about side-effect likelihood leads to a less-informed public who is less likely to vaccinate.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Vaccines / Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice / Vaccination / Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions / Vaccination Hesitancy Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Vaccine Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Vaccines / Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice / Vaccination / Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions / Vaccination Hesitancy Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Vaccine Year: 2022 Document Type: Article