Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments.

BACKGROUND: Germans hesitated to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca in the COVID-19 pandemic after reports of blood clots. METHODS: In two preregistered online experiments with stratified randomization (Study 1 N = 824, Study 2: N = 1,056), we tested whether providing evidence-based benefit-risk information reduces the perceived risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine and increases the vaccination intention. In Study 1, participants saw no infographic (control) or one of two infographics (low vs. high exposure risk varied by the underlying incidence rates). Study 2 additionally varied the infographic design displaying the risk information (presented as table, circle icons, or manikin-like icons). RESULTS: The infographic decreased the risk perception of the vaccine compared to no infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]), but it did not influence the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine (Study 2: Cohens d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33]). Also, the infographic design did not affect the perceived probability of blood clots (Study 2). The vaccination intention was not affected by viewing the infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32]) nor the presented infection rate (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24], Study 2: Cohens d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.15]) but by risk perceptions, sociodemographic characteristics, confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and preference for alternative vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based benefit-risk information helped putting the risk of vaccinations into perspective. Nevertheless, objective risk information alone did not affect vaccination intention that was low due to the preexisting lacking vaccine confidence.

Communicating climate change and health to specific target groups.

Background: The German status report on climate change and health 2023 identifies numerous health risks that are caused or exacerbated by climate change. One recommendation arising from the report is to strengthen education, information, and communication in the field. This article aims to serve as a basis for this. Methods: Based on four survey waves (2022/2023) of the PACE study (Planetary Health Action Survey, n=3,845, online), the status of risk perception as well as the Readiness to Act against climate change in the adult population in Germany is examined and a target group analysis is carried out. Results: Some health risks due to the climate crisis are perceived as comparatively low (e.g. mental health problems). People with higher risk perception show a higher Readiness to Act. Younger people, men, people with low education, and those living in smaller communities are identified as relevant target groups as they have a lower Readiness to Act. One third state that they never or hardly ever seek out specific information on climate change. Media use differs depending on target group. Conclusions: Target group-specific communication can help to educate people about the health impacts of the climate crisis. In the discussion of this article, implications from existing literature are discussed in detail, which offer practical guidance for effective climate change communication.

Increasing the willingness to participate in organ donation through humorous health communication: (Quasi-) experimental evidence.

Increasing people's willingness to donate organs after their death requires effective communication strategies. In two preregistered studies, we assessed whether humorous entertainment education formats on organ donation elicit positive effects on knowledge, fears, attitudes, and behavioral intentions-both immediately after the treatment and four weeks later. We test whether perceived funniness mediates expected effects on attitudes and intentions. Study 1 is a quasi-experiment which uses a live medical comedy show (N = 3,964) as an entertainment education format, which either contained or did not contain information about organ donation. Study 2, a lab experiment, tests humor's causal effect in a pre-post design with a control group (N = 144) in which the same content was provided in either a humorous or non-humorous way in an audio podcast. Results showed that humorous interventions per se were not more effective than neutral information, but that informing people about organ donation in general increased donation intentions, attitudes, and knowledge. However, humorous interventions were especially effective in reducing fears related to organ donation. The findings are discussed regarding the opportunities for sensitive health communication through entertainment education formats, psychological processes that humor triggers, and humor's role in health communication formats.