RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 An Online Application to Explain Community Immunity with Personalized Avatars: A Randomized Controlled Trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.10.18.24314709
DO 10.1101/2024.10.18.24314709
A1 Hakim, Hina
A1 Bettinger, Julie A
A1 Chambers, Christine T.
A1 Driedger, S. Michelle
A1 Dubé, Eve
A1 Gavaruzzi, Teresa
A1 Giguere, Anik
A1 Ivers, Noah M.
A1 Julien, Anne-Sophie
A1 MacDonald, Shannon E.
A1 Noubi, Magniol
A1 Orji, Rita
A1 Parent, Elizabeth
A1 Sander, Beate
A1 Scherer, Aaron M.
A1 Wilson, Kumanan
A1 Reinharz, Daniel
A1 Witteman, Holly O.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/18/2024.10.18.24314709.abstract
AB Background To evaluate the effects of a web-based, personalized avatar intervention conveying the concept of community immunity (herd immunity) on risk perception (perceptions of the risk of infection spreading (to self, family, community, and vulnerable individuals)) and other cognitive and emotional responses across 4 vaccine-preventable disease contexts: measles, pertussis, influenza, and an unnamed “vaccine-preventable disease.”Methods Through a robust user-centered design process, we developed a web application, “herdimm,” showing how community immunity works. In our application, people personalize a virtual community by creating avatars (themselves, 2 vulnerable people in their community, and 6 other people around them; e.g., family members or co-workers.) Herdimm integrates these avatars in a 2-minute narrated animation showing visually how infections spread with and without the protection of community immunity. The present study was a 2×4 factorial randomized controlled trial to assess herdimm’s effects. We recruited 3883 adults via Qualtrics living in Canada who could complete an online study in English or French. We pre-registered our study, including depositing our questionnaire and pre-scripted statistical code on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/hkysb/). The trial ran from March 1 to July 1, 2021. We compared the web application to no intervention (i.e. control) on primary outcome risk perception, divided into objective risk perception (accuracy of risk perception) and subjective risk perception (subjective sense of risk), and on secondary outcomes–emotions (worry, anticipated guilt), knowledge, and vaccination intentions–using analysis of variance for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted planned moderation analyses using participants’ scores on a validated scale of individualism and collectivism as moderators.Results Overall, herdimm had desirable effects on all outcomes. People randomized to herdimm were more likely to score high on objective risk perception (58.0%, 95% confidence interval 56.0%-59.9%) compared to those assigned to the control condition (38.2%, 95% confidence interval 35.5%-40.9%). Herdimm increased subjective risk perception from a mean of 5.30 on a scale from 1 to 7 among those assigned to the control to 5.54 among those assigned to herdimm. The application also increased emotions (worry, anticipated guilt) (F(1,3875)=13.13, p<0.001), knowledge (F(1,3875)=36.37, p<0.001) and vaccination intentions (Chi-squared(1)=9.4136, p=0.002). While objective risk perception did not differ by disease (Chi-squared(3)=6.94, p=0.074), other outcomes did (subjective risk perception F(3,3875) = 5.6430, p<0.001; emotions F(3,3875)=78.54, p<0.001; knowledge (F(3,3875)=5.20, p=0.001); vaccination intentions Chi-squared (3)=15.02, p=0.002). Moderation models showed that many findings were moderated by participants’ individualism and collectivism scores. Overall, whereas outcomes tended not to vary by individualism and collectivism among participants in the control condition, the positive effects of herdimm were larger among participants with more collectivist orientations and effects were sometimes negative among participants with more individualist orientations.Conclusions Conveying the concept of community immunity through a web application using personalized avatars increases objective and subjective risk perception and positively influences intentions to receive vaccines, particularly among people who have more collectivist worldviews. Including prosocial messages about the collective benefits of vaccination in public health campaigns may increase positive effects among people who are more collectivist while possibly backfiring among those who are more individualistic.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04787913Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/hkysb/ Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number FDN-148426, 2016-2021, PI: Witteman). The CIHR had no role in determining the study design, the plans for data collection or analysis, the decision to publish, nor the preparation of this manuscript. HOW is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Human-Centred Digital Health. Dr. Sander is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Economics of Infectious Diseases (CRC-2022-00362). Dr. Scherer was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01AG065440. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIH.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:This project is approved by the "Comité d'éthique de la recherche en sciences de la santé" ethics committee of Laval University (Approval No. 2017- 137 Phase II / 03-09-2019). All participants included in the study consented to participate in the study.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.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll anonymized data are available at Université Laval's Dataverse, Boréalis: https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/41MWKO. All study materials were pre-registered and are available on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/hkysb/). Web development code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/Witteman-Lab/herdimm. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/41MWKO OSFOpen Science Framewor(IQR)Interquartile rangeCIConfidence intervalDfDegree of freedompp-valueFF-statisticLR ChisqLikelihood ratio testsANOVAAnalysis of variance