Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of presenting positively attribute-framed side effect information on COVID-19 booster vaccine intention relative to standard negatively-framed wording and a no-intervention control.
Design setting and participants A representative sample of Australian adults (N=1,204) were randomised to one of six conditions within a factorial design: Framing (Positive; Negative; Control) * Vaccine (Familiar (Pfizer); Unfamiliar (Moderna)).
Intervention Negative Framing involved presenting the likelihood of experiencing side effects (e.g., heart inflammation is very rare, 1 in every 80,000 will be affected), whereas Positive Framing involved presenting the same information but as the likelihood of not experiencing side effects (e.g., 79,999 in every 80,000 will not be affected).
Primary Outcome Booster vaccine intention measured pre- and post-intervention.
Results Positive Framing (M=75.7, SE=0.9, 95% CI[73.9, 77.4]) increased vaccine intention relative to Negative Framing (M=70.7, SE=0.9, 95% CI[68.9, 72.4]) overall (F(1, 1192)=4.68, p=.031, ηp2=.004). Framing interacted with Vaccine and Baseline Intention (F(2, 1192)=6.18, p=.002, ηp2=.01). Positive Framing was superior, or at least equal, to Negative Framing and Control at increasing Booster Intention, irrespective of the participants pre-intervention level of intent. Side effect worry and perceived severity mediated the effect of Positive vs. Negative Framing across vaccines.
Conclusion Positive framing of side effect information appears superior for increasing vaccine intent relative to the standard negative wording currently used.
Pre-registration See: aspredicted.org/LDX_2ZL
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by Australian Research Council grants DP180102061 and DP200101748. The funding body had no involvement in study design, analysis, interpretation, writing, or the decision to submit the present article for publication
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney gave ethical approval for this work (reference, 2021/871)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://osf.io/nfxr3/?view_only=e0717d3f063245268f8ce88144afaa3f
https://osf.io/nfxr3/?view_only=e0717d3f063245268f8ce88144afaa3f