Abstract
Positive framing has been proposed as a potential intervention to increase COVID-19 vaccination intentions. However, most available research has examined fictitious or unfamiliar treatments. This pre-registered study compared positively and negatively attribute-framed side effect information for real COVID-19 booster vaccines (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna) and measured booster intentions pre- and post-intervention in 1,222 UK-based participants. As hypothesised, vaccine familiarity significantly modulated the effect of framing. While positive framing was effective for the least familiar vaccine (i.e., Moderna), standard negative framing appeared to increase intentions for familiar vaccines (AstraZeneca/Pfizer), particularly among those with low baseline intentions. These findings provide important new evidence that positive framing could improve vaccine uptake globally when switches or new developments require individuals to receive less familiar vaccines – as is currently the case for millions of booster vaccines across the world. Positive framing of familiar vaccines, however, should be treated with caution.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://aspredicted.org/53ph4.pdf
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:
University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sydney gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Footnotes
Secondary analyses have been moved to Supplementary Materials
Data Availability
All data produced are available online through the Open Science Framework repository
https://osf.io/d5cvn/?view_only=cb90eca9ddf446c8901652ab0344fa05
