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.
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)