Appealing to Americans’ altruism is not enough to nudge them to accept novel vaccines

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Emmanuel F Drabo, Marcella A Kelley, Cynthia L Gong
{"title":"Appealing to Americans’ altruism is not enough to nudge them to accept novel vaccines","authors":"Emmanuel F Drabo, Marcella A Kelley, Cynthia L Gong","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdae048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The role of altruism in the acceptance of novel preventive healthcare technologies like vaccines has not been thoroughly elucidated. Methods We 1:1 randomized n = 2004 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) participants residing in the USA into a control or treatment arm with vaccination decisions framed altruistically, to elicit their preferences for COVID-19 vaccination using web-based discrete choice experiments. We used conditional and mixed logit models to estimate the impact of framing decisions in terms of altruism on vaccination acceptance. Results Valid responses were provided by 1674 participants (control, n = 848; treatment, n = 826). Framing vaccination decisions altruistically had no significant effect on vaccination acceptance. Further, respondents’ degree of altruism had no association with vaccination acceptance. Limitations The MTurk sample may not be representative of the American population. We were unable to ascertain concordance between stated and revealed preferences. Conclusions and Implications Framing vaccination decisions in terms of altruism does not appear to significantly influence vaccination acceptance and may not be an effective nudging mechanism to increase the uptake of novel vaccines. Instead, a favorable vaccination profile appears to be the primary driver of uptake.","PeriodicalId":16904,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The role of altruism in the acceptance of novel preventive healthcare technologies like vaccines has not been thoroughly elucidated. Methods We 1:1 randomized n = 2004 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) participants residing in the USA into a control or treatment arm with vaccination decisions framed altruistically, to elicit their preferences for COVID-19 vaccination using web-based discrete choice experiments. We used conditional and mixed logit models to estimate the impact of framing decisions in terms of altruism on vaccination acceptance. Results Valid responses were provided by 1674 participants (control, n = 848; treatment, n = 826). Framing vaccination decisions altruistically had no significant effect on vaccination acceptance. Further, respondents’ degree of altruism had no association with vaccination acceptance. Limitations The MTurk sample may not be representative of the American population. We were unable to ascertain concordance between stated and revealed preferences. Conclusions and Implications Framing vaccination decisions in terms of altruism does not appear to significantly influence vaccination acceptance and may not be an effective nudging mechanism to increase the uptake of novel vaccines. Instead, a favorable vaccination profile appears to be the primary driver of uptake.
美国人的利他主义不足以促使他们接受新型疫苗
背景 利他主义在接受疫苗等新型预防保健技术中的作用尚未得到彻底阐明。方法 我们以 1:1 的比例将 n = 2004 名居住在美国的亚马逊机械特克(MTurk)参与者随机分为对照组和治疗组,并以利他主义作为疫苗接种决策的框架,通过基于网络的离散选择实验来了解他们对 COVID-19 疫苗接种的偏好。我们使用条件和混合 Logit 模型来估算利他决策对疫苗接种接受度的影响。结果 1674 名参与者做出了有效回答(对照组,n = 848;治疗组,n = 826)。利他主义的疫苗接种决策框架对疫苗接种的接受度没有显著影响。此外,受访者的利他主义程度与疫苗接种接受度也没有关系。局限性 MTurk 的样本可能无法代表美国人口。我们无法确定陈述的偏好与揭示的偏好是否一致。结论和启示 从利他主义的角度制定疫苗接种决策似乎不会显著影响疫苗接种的接受度,也可能不是提高新型疫苗接种率的有效激励机制。相反,有利的疫苗接种情况似乎是疫苗接种的主要驱动因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health
Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
120
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Previous Title Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Previous Print ISSN 0943-1853, Previous Online ISSN 1613-2238. The Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice is an interdisciplinary publication for the discussion and debate of international public health issues, with a focus on European affairs. It describes the social and individual factors determining the basic conditions of public health, analyzing causal interrelations, and offering a scientifically sound rationale for personal, social and political measures of intervention. Coverage includes contributions from epidemiology, health economics, environmental health, management, social sciences, ethics, and law. ISSN: 2198-1833 (Print) 1613-2238 (Online)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信