How to boost the boosters? A survey-experiment on the effectiveness of different policies aimed at enhancing acceptance of a "Seasonal" vaccination against COVID-19.

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Talia Goren, Itai Beeri, Dana Rachel Vashdi
{"title":"How to boost the boosters? A survey-experiment on the effectiveness of different policies aimed at enhancing acceptance of a \"Seasonal\" vaccination against COVID-19.","authors":"Talia Goren, Itai Beeri, Dana Rachel Vashdi","doi":"10.1186/s13584-022-00536-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence suggests a gradual decrease in the effectiveness of the anti-COVID-19 vaccines, stressing the potential need for periodical booster shots. However, it is hard to tell whether previously applied policies for enhancing vaccine acceptance will be as effective for repeated periodical booster shots during a pandemic. Hence, this study aims to explore the effectiveness of different health policies on periodical vaccination acceptance amidst an ongoing pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross sectional online experiment was performed in a representative sample of 929 Israeli citizens. Participants were randomly allocated to 4 groups simulating different hypothetical periodical-vaccination-promoting policy scenarios: (1) Mandate (N = 229); (2) a negative monetary incentive (N = 244); (3) a positive monetary incentive (N = 228) and (4) information provision (N = 228). Compliance intentions and vaccine-acceptance-related variables were measured. Analysis included multivariate hierarchic logistic and linear regressions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compliance intentions levels were medium (M = 3.13 on a 1-5 scale). Only 20.2% of the sample demonstrated strong acceptance of periodical vaccination, which is lower than the acceptance rate of the seasonal flu shot in the country in the year preceding the pandemic. Type of policy was related to the extent to which a respondent strongly agreed to be periodically vaccinated or not. Specifically, strong acceptance was more likely when positive or negative incentives were presented in comparison to the mandate or information provision conditions. However, when examining the extent of compliance among respondents who were less decisive, the type of policy did not predict the extent to which these respondents intended to comply. In addition, compliance intentions were related with the perceived benefits and barriers of the vaccine, the perceived efficacy of getting vaccinated and social norms. Hesitator's intentions were additionally associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccination history, perceived severity of the disease and trust in government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pandemic-containing vaccines may be perceived as less effective and beneficial than pandemic-preventing vaccines. Individuals with different levels of motivation for periodical vaccination during a pandemic may be affected by different factors. While strongly opinionated individuals are affected by the type of vaccination-promoting policy, hesitators are affected by a larger number of factors, which provide policy makers with greater opportunities to enhance their vaccination intentions.</p>","PeriodicalId":46694,"journal":{"name":"Israel Journal of Health Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9251947/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israel Journal of Health Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-022-00536-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence suggests a gradual decrease in the effectiveness of the anti-COVID-19 vaccines, stressing the potential need for periodical booster shots. However, it is hard to tell whether previously applied policies for enhancing vaccine acceptance will be as effective for repeated periodical booster shots during a pandemic. Hence, this study aims to explore the effectiveness of different health policies on periodical vaccination acceptance amidst an ongoing pandemic.

Methods: A cross sectional online experiment was performed in a representative sample of 929 Israeli citizens. Participants were randomly allocated to 4 groups simulating different hypothetical periodical-vaccination-promoting policy scenarios: (1) Mandate (N = 229); (2) a negative monetary incentive (N = 244); (3) a positive monetary incentive (N = 228) and (4) information provision (N = 228). Compliance intentions and vaccine-acceptance-related variables were measured. Analysis included multivariate hierarchic logistic and linear regressions.

Results: Compliance intentions levels were medium (M = 3.13 on a 1-5 scale). Only 20.2% of the sample demonstrated strong acceptance of periodical vaccination, which is lower than the acceptance rate of the seasonal flu shot in the country in the year preceding the pandemic. Type of policy was related to the extent to which a respondent strongly agreed to be periodically vaccinated or not. Specifically, strong acceptance was more likely when positive or negative incentives were presented in comparison to the mandate or information provision conditions. However, when examining the extent of compliance among respondents who were less decisive, the type of policy did not predict the extent to which these respondents intended to comply. In addition, compliance intentions were related with the perceived benefits and barriers of the vaccine, the perceived efficacy of getting vaccinated and social norms. Hesitator's intentions were additionally associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccination history, perceived severity of the disease and trust in government.

Conclusions: Pandemic-containing vaccines may be perceived as less effective and beneficial than pandemic-preventing vaccines. Individuals with different levels of motivation for periodical vaccination during a pandemic may be affected by different factors. While strongly opinionated individuals are affected by the type of vaccination-promoting policy, hesitators are affected by a larger number of factors, which provide policy makers with greater opportunities to enhance their vaccination intentions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

如何提高接种率?旨在提高 COVID-19 "季节性 "疫苗接种接受度的不同政策的有效性调查实验。
背景:有证据表明,抗 COVID-19 疫苗的有效性正在逐渐降低,这强调了定期加强注射的潜在必要性。然而,很难说以前采用的提高疫苗接受度的政策在大流行期间是否对重复定期加强注射同样有效。因此,本研究旨在探讨在大流行期间不同卫生政策对定期接种疫苗接受度的影响:方法:对具有代表性的 929 名以色列公民进行了一次横断面在线实验。参与者被随机分配到模拟不同假定的促进定期接种疫苗政策情景的 4 个组:(1) 强制(N = 229);(2) 负货币激励(N = 244);(3) 正货币激励(N = 228);(4) 信息提供(N = 228)。对遵从意愿和疫苗接受度相关变量进行了测量。分析包括多变量分层逻辑回归和线性回归:遵从意愿水平中等(M = 3.13,1-5 级)。只有 20.2% 的样本强烈接受定期接种疫苗,低于大流行前一年该国对季节性流感疫苗的接受率。政策类型与受访者是否强烈同意定期接种疫苗有关。具体来说,与强制接种或提供信息的条件相比,如果采取积极或消极的激励措施,受访者更有可能强烈同意接种。然而,在考察那些不那么果断的受访者的遵从程度时,政策类型并不能预测这些受访者打算遵从的程度。此外,遵从意愿还与疫苗的可感知收益和障碍、接种疫苗的可感知功效以及社会规范有关。犹豫不决者的意向还与反 COVID-19 疫苗接种史、对疾病严重性的认知以及对政府的信任有关:结论:与预防大流行疫苗相比,人们可能会认为接种大流行疫苗的效果和益处较小。在大流行期间,对定期接种疫苗有不同动机的个人可能会受到不同因素的影响。意见强烈的人受疫苗接种促进政策类型的影响,而犹豫不决的人则受更多因素的影响,这就为政策制定者提供了更多机会来提高他们的疫苗接种意愿。
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.40%
发文量
38
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
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