以沟通为基础的干预措施提高COVID-19疫苗接种意愿和吸收率:一项带有荟萃分析的系统综述

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Claire Iannizzi, Marike Andreas, Emma Bohndorf, Caroline Hirsch, Ana-Mihaela Zorger, Janine Brinkmann-Paulukat, Brigitte Bormann, Jessica Kaufman, Tina Lischetzki, Ina Monsef, Julia Neufeind, Nora Schmid-Küpke, Sebastian Thole, Karina Worbes, Nicole Skoetz
{"title":"以沟通为基础的干预措施提高COVID-19疫苗接种意愿和吸收率:一项带有荟萃分析的系统综述","authors":"Claire Iannizzi, Marike Andreas, Emma Bohndorf, Caroline Hirsch, Ana-Mihaela Zorger, Janine Brinkmann-Paulukat, Brigitte Bormann, Jessica Kaufman, Tina Lischetzki, Ina Monsef, Julia Neufeind, Nora Schmid-Küpke, Sebastian Thole, Karina Worbes, Nicole Skoetz","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of different communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and willingness.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), following recommendations from the <i>Cochrane Handbook</i> and reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched the following databases until 27 July 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and WHO COVID-19 Global literature.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria for study selection: </strong>We included RCTs investigating, any population, communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparing these with no intervention (with or without placebo), another communication strategy or another type of intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Screening, data extraction and bias assessment, using the Cochrane ROB 1.0 tool, were conducted by two authors independently. We performed meta-analyses if studies were homogeneous using the Review Manager (RevMan 5) software, synthesised the remaining results narratively and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 49 studies reporting on the predefined four categories of communication interventions. Evidence from our meta-analyses shows that COVID-19 vaccine uptake may increase when education and information strategies are applied (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence) or social norms are communicated (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.33; high-certainty evidence) compared with no intervention. The different communication strategies mostly have little to no impact on vaccine intention; however, there may be a slight increase in vaccine confidence when gain framing is applied compared with no intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, we found that education and information-based interventions or social norm-framing strategies are most effective compared with no intervention given. Our findings show that some of the investigated communication strategies might influence policy decision-making, and our results could be useful for future pandemics as well.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42021296618).</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 5","pages":"e072942"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12086885/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake: a systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Claire Iannizzi, Marike Andreas, Emma Bohndorf, Caroline Hirsch, Ana-Mihaela Zorger, Janine Brinkmann-Paulukat, Brigitte Bormann, Jessica Kaufman, Tina Lischetzki, Ina Monsef, Julia Neufeind, Nora Schmid-Küpke, Sebastian Thole, Karina Worbes, Nicole Skoetz\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072942\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of different communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and willingness.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), following recommendations from the <i>Cochrane Handbook</i> and reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched the following databases until 27 July 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and WHO COVID-19 Global literature.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria for study selection: </strong>We included RCTs investigating, any population, communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparing these with no intervention (with or without placebo), another communication strategy or another type of intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Screening, data extraction and bias assessment, using the Cochrane ROB 1.0 tool, were conducted by two authors independently. We performed meta-analyses if studies were homogeneous using the Review Manager (RevMan 5) software, synthesised the remaining results narratively and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 49 studies reporting on the predefined four categories of communication interventions. Evidence from our meta-analyses shows that COVID-19 vaccine uptake may increase when education and information strategies are applied (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence) or social norms are communicated (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.33; high-certainty evidence) compared with no intervention. The different communication strategies mostly have little to no impact on vaccine intention; however, there may be a slight increase in vaccine confidence when gain framing is applied compared with no intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, we found that education and information-based interventions or social norm-framing strategies are most effective compared with no intervention given. Our findings show that some of the investigated communication strategies might influence policy decision-making, and our results could be useful for future pandemics as well.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42021296618).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open\",\"volume\":\"15 5\",\"pages\":\"e072942\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12086885/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072942\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072942","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述探讨不同传播策略对提高COVID-19疫苗接种率和意愿的有效性。设计:随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价和荟萃分析,遵循Cochrane手册的建议,并根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行报告。数据来源:截至2022年7月27日,我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Web of Science Core Collection和WHO COVID-19全球文献。研究选择的资格标准:我们纳入了调查任何人群、基于沟通的干预措施以增加COVID-19疫苗吸收量的随机对照试验,并将其与不干预(有或没有安慰剂)、另一种沟通策略或另一种类型的干预进行比较。方法:筛选、资料提取和偏倚评估,采用Cochrane ROB 1.0工具,由两位作者独立进行。如果研究是同质的,我们使用Review Manager (RevMan 5)软件进行meta分析,对剩余结果进行叙述性综合,并使用分级推荐评估、发展和评估方法评估证据的确定性。结果:我们确定了49项研究报告了预定义的四类沟通干预。我们荟萃分析的证据显示,当应用教育和信息策略时,COVID-19疫苗的吸收率可能会增加(风险比(RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.17至1.28;高确定性证据)或社会规范的沟通(RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.23至1.33;高确定性证据)与无干预相比。不同的传播策略大多对疫苗意向影响不大或没有影响;然而,与不进行干预相比,采用增益框架可能会略微增加疫苗的可信度。结论:总的来说,我们发现教育和基于信息的干预或社会规范框架策略比不给予干预更有效。我们的研究结果表明,一些被调查的传播策略可能会影响政策决策,我们的结果也可能对未来的流行病有用。普洛斯彼罗注册号:普洛斯彼罗(CRD42021296618)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Objective: This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of different communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and willingness.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), following recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.

Data sources: We searched the following databases until 27 July 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and WHO COVID-19 Global literature.

Eligibility criteria for study selection: We included RCTs investigating, any population, communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparing these with no intervention (with or without placebo), another communication strategy or another type of intervention.

Methods: Screening, data extraction and bias assessment, using the Cochrane ROB 1.0 tool, were conducted by two authors independently. We performed meta-analyses if studies were homogeneous using the Review Manager (RevMan 5) software, synthesised the remaining results narratively and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results: We identified 49 studies reporting on the predefined four categories of communication interventions. Evidence from our meta-analyses shows that COVID-19 vaccine uptake may increase when education and information strategies are applied (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence) or social norms are communicated (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.33; high-certainty evidence) compared with no intervention. The different communication strategies mostly have little to no impact on vaccine intention; however, there may be a slight increase in vaccine confidence when gain framing is applied compared with no intervention.

Conclusion: Overall, we found that education and information-based interventions or social norm-framing strategies are most effective compared with no intervention given. Our findings show that some of the investigated communication strategies might influence policy decision-making, and our results could be useful for future pandemics as well.

Prospero registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42021296618).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
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