Jim Ingebretsen Carlson, Federico Puppo, Ana Roca-Umbert, Frans Folkvord, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva
{"title":"An experimental study on the effects of electronic medicinal product information on vaccine hesitancy.","authors":"Jim Ingebretsen Carlson, Federico Puppo, Ana Roca-Umbert, Frans Folkvord, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-96092-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although immunization through vaccination is one of the most successful public health interventions, coverage of some vaccination programs has decreased in recent years due to increased vaccine hesitancy. Cognitive biases have been shown to play an important role in affecting vaccine hesitancy. In this study, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 2000, N = 1000 from Spain and N = 1000 from Bulgaria), where subjects were randomly assigned to one experimental condition. The experimental conditions differed by whether electronic product information (ePI) was presented to the subjects and by the type of information that was made more salient to the patient. The current study showed that the provision of digital information in the form of ePI has important consequences for achieving high vaccination rates. The main result suggests that providing vaccination information in the form of ePI can increase patients' vaccine hesitancy. This effect remained when positive and/or negative information in the ePI was made more salient to the patients. Additionally, we observe that vaccine hesitant individuals spend less time reading ePI. We conclude, by relating the current study to the relevant literature, that salience and information overload could be the main driver of vaccine hesitancy in the context of this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"11197"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96092-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Although immunization through vaccination is one of the most successful public health interventions, coverage of some vaccination programs has decreased in recent years due to increased vaccine hesitancy. Cognitive biases have been shown to play an important role in affecting vaccine hesitancy. In this study, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 2000, N = 1000 from Spain and N = 1000 from Bulgaria), where subjects were randomly assigned to one experimental condition. The experimental conditions differed by whether electronic product information (ePI) was presented to the subjects and by the type of information that was made more salient to the patient. The current study showed that the provision of digital information in the form of ePI has important consequences for achieving high vaccination rates. The main result suggests that providing vaccination information in the form of ePI can increase patients' vaccine hesitancy. This effect remained when positive and/or negative information in the ePI was made more salient to the patients. Additionally, we observe that vaccine hesitant individuals spend less time reading ePI. We conclude, by relating the current study to the relevant literature, that salience and information overload could be the main driver of vaccine hesitancy in the context of this study.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.