PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Kerr, John R.
AU  - Freeman, Alexandra L. J.
AU  - Marteau, Theresa M.
AU  - van der Linden, Sander
TI  - Effect of information about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and side effects on behavioural intentions: two online experiments
AID  - 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253963
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.03.19.21253963
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/20/2021.03.19.21253963.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/20/2021.03.19.21253963.full
AB  - The success of mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns rests on widespread uptake. However, although vaccinations provide good protection, they do not offer full immunity and while they likely reduce transmission of the virus to others, the extent of this remains uncertain. This produces a dilemma for communicators who wish to be transparent about benefits and harms and encourage continued caution in vaccinated individuals but not undermine confidence in an important public health measure. In two large pre-registered experimental studies on quota-sampled UK public participants we investigate the effects of providing transparent communication—including uncertainty—about vaccination effectiveness on decision-making. In Study 1 (n = 2,097) we report that detailed information about COVID-19 vaccines, including results of clinical trials, does not have a significant impact on beliefs about the efficacy of such vaccines, concerns over side effects, or intentions to receive a vaccine. Study 2 (n = 2,217) addressed concerns that highlighting the need to maintain protective behaviours (e.g. social distancing) post-vaccination may lower perceptions of vaccine efficacy and willingness to receive a vaccine. We do not find evidence of this: transparent messages did not significantly reduce perceptions of vaccine efficacy, and in some cases increased perceptions of efficacy. We again report no main effect of messages on intentions to receive a vaccine. The results of both studies suggest that transparently informing people of the limitations of vaccinations does not reduce intentions to be vaccinated but neither does it increase intentions to engage in protective behaviours post-vaccination.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication which is supported by the David and Claudia Harding Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Study ethical oversight was provided by the Psychology Research Ethics Committee at the University of Cambridge (PRE.2020.034, amendmend on 9th and 25th January 2021).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData and analysis code for these studies are available at: https://osf.io/hsugy/?view_only=16fbf1f5737a43db8f9d20a7b2d3db4b https://osf.io/hsugy/?view_only=16fbf1f5737a43db8f9d20a7b2d3db4b