[通过官方疫苗接种传播的启示:一项实验研究,将循证事实盒与推动和广告进行比较]。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Felix G Rebitschek, Mirjam A Jenny, Gert G Wagner, Christin Ellermann
{"title":"[通过官方疫苗接种传播的启示:一项实验研究,将循证事实盒与推动和广告进行比较]。","authors":"Felix G Rebitschek, Mirjam A Jenny, Gert G Wagner, Christin Ellermann","doi":"10.1007/s00103-025-04109-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Evidence-based health information is a key tool in health communication to support informed decision-making. In contrast, there are behavioural approaches. The suitability of the different approaches seems to depend on the initial willingness to vaccinate and the information needs (e.g. of undecided people, sceptics).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the longitudinal Corona Online Opinion Panel Survey Special (COMPASS) survey panel, we conducted a preregistered experiment (N = 2944) in May 2021 involving information presentations on vaccination: evidence-based tabular and graphical fact box vs. norm and moral nudge vs. vaccination advertising. Before and after vaccination education, vaccination intentions, understanding of vaccination, and attitudes toward and trust in vaccines were measured among those willing, inclined, sceptical, opposed and undecided.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fact boxes supported understanding of vaccination. Graphical fact boxes reinforced vaccination intention of undecideds without information needs. The moral nudge, but not the norm nudge, increased the vaccination intention of vaccination sceptics and undecided people without information needs. No negative influence on trust in vaccines could be identified.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Evidence-based information does not counteract the social goal of high immunisation coverage of the population. Depending on the intention to vaccinate and the need for information, different target groups react differently to vaccination communication. Questions of ethical and legal responsibility should be discussed with regard to nudging and vaccination advertising.</p>","PeriodicalId":9562,"journal":{"name":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","volume":" ","pages":"1024-1034"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12391170/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].\",\"authors\":\"Felix G Rebitschek, Mirjam A Jenny, Gert G Wagner, Christin Ellermann\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00103-025-04109-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Evidence-based health information is a key tool in health communication to support informed decision-making. In contrast, there are behavioural approaches. The suitability of the different approaches seems to depend on the initial willingness to vaccinate and the information needs (e.g. of undecided people, sceptics).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the longitudinal Corona Online Opinion Panel Survey Special (COMPASS) survey panel, we conducted a preregistered experiment (N = 2944) in May 2021 involving information presentations on vaccination: evidence-based tabular and graphical fact box vs. norm and moral nudge vs. vaccination advertising. Before and after vaccination education, vaccination intentions, understanding of vaccination, and attitudes toward and trust in vaccines were measured among those willing, inclined, sceptical, opposed and undecided.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fact boxes supported understanding of vaccination. Graphical fact boxes reinforced vaccination intention of undecideds without information needs. The moral nudge, but not the norm nudge, increased the vaccination intention of vaccination sceptics and undecided people without information needs. No negative influence on trust in vaccines could be identified.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Evidence-based information does not counteract the social goal of high immunisation coverage of the population. Depending on the intention to vaccinate and the need for information, different target groups react differently to vaccination communication. Questions of ethical and legal responsibility should be discussed with regard to nudging and vaccination advertising.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1024-1034\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12391170/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-025-04109-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-025-04109-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:基于证据的卫生信息是卫生交流中支持知情决策的关键工具。相反,有行为方法。不同方法的适用性似乎取决于最初接种疫苗的意愿和信息需求(例如,犹豫不决的人、怀疑论者)。方法:利用纵向Corona在线意见小组调查特别(COMPASS)调查小组,我们于2021年5月进行了一项预注册实验(N = 2944),涉及疫苗接种的信息展示:循证表格和图形事实框、规范和道德推动、疫苗接种广告。在疫苗接种教育前后,测量了愿意、倾向、怀疑、反对和未决定者的疫苗接种意图、疫苗接种理解以及对疫苗的态度和信任。结果:事实框支持对疫苗接种的理解。图形事实框在不需要信息的情况下加强了未决定者的接种意愿。道德的推动,而不是规范的推动,增加了疫苗接种怀疑论者和没有信息需求的犹豫不决者的疫苗接种意愿。没有发现对疫苗信任的负面影响。讨论:基于证据的信息不会抵消人口免疫高覆盖率的社会目标。根据接种疫苗的意图和对信息的需要,不同的目标群体对疫苗接种宣传的反应不同。应讨论关于轻推和疫苗接种广告的道德和法律责任问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].

[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].

[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].

[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].

Introduction: Evidence-based health information is a key tool in health communication to support informed decision-making. In contrast, there are behavioural approaches. The suitability of the different approaches seems to depend on the initial willingness to vaccinate and the information needs (e.g. of undecided people, sceptics).

Methods: Using the longitudinal Corona Online Opinion Panel Survey Special (COMPASS) survey panel, we conducted a preregistered experiment (N = 2944) in May 2021 involving information presentations on vaccination: evidence-based tabular and graphical fact box vs. norm and moral nudge vs. vaccination advertising. Before and after vaccination education, vaccination intentions, understanding of vaccination, and attitudes toward and trust in vaccines were measured among those willing, inclined, sceptical, opposed and undecided.

Results: Fact boxes supported understanding of vaccination. Graphical fact boxes reinforced vaccination intention of undecideds without information needs. The moral nudge, but not the norm nudge, increased the vaccination intention of vaccination sceptics and undecided people without information needs. No negative influence on trust in vaccines could be identified.

Discussion: Evidence-based information does not counteract the social goal of high immunisation coverage of the population. Depending on the intention to vaccinate and the need for information, different target groups react differently to vaccination communication. Questions of ethical and legal responsibility should be discussed with regard to nudging and vaccination advertising.

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
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Monatszeitschrift Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - umfasst alle Fragestellungen und Bereiche, mit denen sich das öffentliche Gesundheitswesen und die staatliche Gesundheitspolitik auseinandersetzen. Ziel ist es, zum einen über wesentliche Entwicklungen in der biologisch-medizinischen Grundlagenforschung auf dem Laufenden zu halten und zum anderen über konkrete Maßnahmen zum Gesundheitsschutz, über Konzepte der Prävention, Risikoabwehr und Gesundheitsförderung zu informieren. Wichtige Themengebiete sind die Epidemiologie übertragbarer und nicht übertragbarer Krankheiten, der umweltbezogene Gesundheitsschutz sowie gesundheitsökonomische, medizinethische und -rechtliche Fragestellungen.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信