Dataset Information

Impact of a physician recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination intent among vaccine hesitant individuals.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To test the impact of varied physician recommendations on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Methods

We conducted a vignette-based experimental survey on Prolific, an online research platform. COVID-19 vaccine hesitant, adult panel members were assigned to one of five messages that varied by recommendation style (participatory vs explicit) and strategy (acknowledgement of concerns; comparison to the flu shot; statement that millions of people have already received it; emphasis on protecting others). Vaccine hesitancy was re-assessed with the question, "Would you get vaccinated at this visit?".

Results

Of the 752 participants, 60.1% were female, 43.4% Black, 23.6% Latino, and 33.0% White; mean age was 35.6 years. Overall, 33.1% of the initially "not sure" and 13.1% of the initially "no" participants became less hesitant following any recommendation. Among the "not sure" participants, 20.3% of those who received a participatory recommendation became less hesitant compared with 34.3%- 39.5% for the explicit recommendations. The "protect others" message was most effective among initially "no" participants; 19.8% become less hesitant, compared to 8.7% for the participatory recommendation.

Conclusion

A physician recommendation may reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Practice implications

An explicit recommendation and "protect others" message appear to be important elements of a physician recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination.

SUBMITTER: Fisher KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9523946 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of a physician recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination intent among vaccine hesitant individuals.

Fisher Kimberly A KA Nguyen Ngoc N Fouayzi Hassan H Singh Sonal S Crawford Sybil S Mazor Kathleen M KM

Patient education and counseling 20220930

<h4>Objective</h4>To test the impact of varied physician recommendations on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a vignette-based experimental survey on Prolific, an online research platform. COVID-19 vaccine hesitant, adult panel members were assigned to one of five messages that varied by recommendation style (participatory vs explicit) and strategy (acknowledgement of concerns; comparison to the flu shot; statement that millions of people have already received it; emphasis ...[more]

PMID: 36244947

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLong COVID contributes to the global burden of disease. Proposed root cause hypotheses include the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 viral reservoir, autoimmunity, and reactivation of latent herpesviruses. Patients have reported various changes in Long COVID symptoms after COVID-19 vaccinations, leaving uncertainty about whether vaccine-induced immune responses may alleviate or worsen disease pathology.MethodsIn this prospective study, we evaluated changes in symptoms and immune responses after COVID-19 vaccination in 16 vaccine-naïve individuals with Long COVID. Surveys were administered before vaccination and then at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after receiving the first vaccine dose of the primary series. Simultaneously, SARS-CoV-2-reactive TCR enrichment, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses, antibody responses to other viral and self-antigens, and circulating cytokines were quantified before vaccination and at 6 and 12 weeks after vaccination.ResultsSelf-report at 12 weeks post-vaccination indicated 10 out of 16 participants had improved health, 3 had no change, 1 had worse health, and 2 reported marginal changes. Significant elevation in SARS-CoV-2-specific TCRs and Spike protein-specific IgG were observed 6 and 12 weeks after vaccination. No changes in reactivities were observed against herpes viruses and self-antigens. Within this dataset, higher baseline sIL-6R was associated with symptom improvement, and the two top features associated with non-improvement were high IFN-β and CNTF, among soluble analytes.ConclusionsOur study showed that in this small sample, vaccination improved the health or resulted in no change to the health of most participants, though few experienced worsening. Vaccination was associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein-specific IgG and T cell expansion in most individuals with Long COVID. Symptom improvement was observed in those with baseline elevated sIL-6R, while elevated interferon and neuropeptide levels were associated with a lack of improvement.

Project description:ImportanceHesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination is a major factor in stagnating uptake rates and in the risk of health care systems becoming overwhelmed.ObjectiveTo compare an interactive risk ratio simulation (intervention) with a conventional text-based risk information format (control) and analyze change in participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study conducted online with 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adult residents of Germany in April and May 2022, surveyed using a probability-based internet panel maintained by respondi, a research and analytics firm. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 presentations on the benefits and adverse events associated with vaccination.ExposureParticipants were randomized to a text-based description vs an interactive simulation presenting age-adjusted absolute risks of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death after exposure to coronavirus in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals relative to the possible adverse effects as well as additional (population-level) benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.Main outcomes and measuresAbsolute change in respondents' COVID-19 vaccination intention category and benefit-to-harm assessment category.ResultsParticipants were 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant residents of Germany (660 women [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 43.6 [13.5] years). A total of 651 participants received a text-based description, and 604 participants received an interactive simulation. Relative to the text-based format, the simulation was associated with greater likelihood of positive change in vaccination intentions (19.5% vs 15.3%, respectively; absolute difference, 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.96; P = .01) and benefit-to-harm assessments (32.6% vs 18.0%; absolute difference, 14.6%; aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.64-2.80; P < .001). Both formats were also associated with some negative change. However, the net advantage (positive - negative change) of the interactive simulation over the text-based format was 5.3 percentage points for vaccination intention (9.8% vs 4.5%) and 18.3 percentage points for benefit-to-harm assessment (25.3% vs 7.0%). Positive change in vaccination intention (but not in benefit-to-harm assessment) was associated with some demographic characteristics and attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination; negative changes were not.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, vaccine-hesitant adults presented with an interactive risk ratio simulation were more likely to show positive change in COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment than those presented with a conventional text-based information format. These findings suggest that the interactive risk communication format can be an important tool in addressing vaccination hesitancy and fostering public trust.

Dataset Information

Impact of a physician recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination intent among vaccine hesitant individuals.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Practice implications

Publications

Impact of a physician recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination intent among vaccine hesitant individuals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets