Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Vaccination | Research

Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments

Authors: Lisa Felgendreff, Regina Siegers, Leonie Otten, Cornelia Betsch

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Germans hesitated to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca in the COVID-19 pandemic after reports of blood clots.

Methods

In two preregistered online experiments with stratified randomization (Study 1 N = 824, Study 2: N = 1,056), we tested whether providing evidence-based benefit-risk information reduces the perceived risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine and increases the vaccination intention. In Study 1, participants saw no infographic (control) or one of two infographics (low vs. high exposure risk varied by the underlying incidence rates). Study 2 additionally varied the infographic design displaying the risk information (presented as table, circle icons, or manikin-like icons).

Results

The infographic decreased the risk perception of the vaccine compared to no infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]), but it did not influence the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine (Study 2: Cohens d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33]). Also, the infographic design did not affect the perceived probability of blood clots (Study 2). The vaccination intention was not affected by viewing the infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32]) nor the presented infection rate (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24], Study 2: Cohens d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.15]) but by risk perceptions, sociodemographic characteristics, confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and preference for alternative vaccines.

Conclusions

The evidence-based benefit-risk information helped putting the risk of vaccinations into perspective. Nevertheless, objective risk information alone did not affect vaccination intention that was low due to the preexisting lacking vaccine confidence.

Available only for authorised users

Studies 1 and 2 were preregistered (anonymized version of the pre-registrations: https://aspredicted.org/w5uz7.pdf, https://aspredicted.org/z83iw.pdf). Reported hypotheses were performed according to the preregistered analysis plans. See Additional file 1: Supplement S2 for not reported preregistered hypotheses of Study 2.

Explorative t-tests comparing the means of Study 2’s dependent variables for those two conditions did not indicate any difference in the group means (see Additional file 1: Supplement S7). Since Studies 1 and 2 yield similar effects, the stimuli of the preceding experiment seemed not to have influenced Study 2’s dependent variables. Overall, the setting of the survey seems to yield low potential to have influenced the results of Study 2.

Wise J. Covid-19: how AstraZeneca lost the vaccine PR war. BMJ. 2021;373:n921.CrossRefPubMed

Wise J. Covid-19: European countries suspend use of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of blood clots. BMJ. 2021;372:n699.CrossRefPubMed

Smith M. Europeans now see AstraZeneca vaccine as unsafe, following blood clots scare. Reports. 2021. Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2021/03/22/europeans-now-see-astrazeneca-vaccine-unsafe-follo. Cited 2021 Jun 16.

Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT, Østergaard SD. Sustained COVID-19 vaccine willingness after safety concerns over the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. Dan Med J. 2021;68(5):A03210292.PubMed

European Medicines Agency. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low blood platelets. News. 2021. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clots.

Horowitz J, Mueller B. Europe’s Vaccine Suspension May Be Driven as Much by Politics as Science. The New York Times. 2021 . Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/world/europe/europe-astrazeneca-vaccine-suspensions.html. Cited 2021 Jul 1.

Vygen-Bonnet S, Koch J, Bogdan C, Harder T, Heininger U, Kling K, et al. Beschluss Der STIKO zur 2. Aktualisierung Der COVID-19-Impfempfehlung und die dazugehörige wissenschaftliche Begründung. Epid Bull. 2021;5:3–79. https://doi.org/10.25646/7820.3.

Smith M. Confidence in AstraZeneca vaccine remains low in France and Germany . Reports. 2021 . Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2021/05/06/confidence-astrazeneca-vaccine-remains-low-france. Cited 2021 Jul 2

Betsch C, Korn L, Felgendreff L, Eitze S, Schmid P, Sprengholz P et al. COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Germany) - Wave 39. 2021. Available from: https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/4191. Cited 2021 Jun 29.

10.

Betsch C, Korn L, Felgendreff L, Eitze S, Schmid P, Sprengholz P, et al. COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Germany) - Wave 42. 2021. Available from: https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/4248. Cited 2022 May 15.

11.

Danish Health Authority. Denmark continues its vaccine rollout without the COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.sst.dk/en/english/news/2021/denmark-continues-its-vaccine-rollout-without-the-covid-19-vaccine-from-astrazeneca.

12.

Petersen MB, Jørgensen F, Lindholt MF. Did the European suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine decrease vaccine acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic? Vaccine. 2022;40(4):558–61.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Betsch C, Korn L, Felgendreff L, Eitze S, Schmid P, Sprengholz P et al. COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Germany) - Impfstatus und Impfbereitschaft. 2022 . Available from:https://projekte.uni-erfurt.de/cosmo2020/web/topic/impfung/10-impfungen/#impfstatus-und-impfbereitschaft. Cited 2022 May 15.

14.

Betsch C, Renkewitz F, Haase N. Effect of narrative reports about vaccine adverse events and bias-awareness disclaimers on vaccine decisions: a simulation of an online patient social network. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):14–25.CrossRef

15.

Haase N, Betsch C, Renkewitz F. Source credibility and the biasing effect of narrative information on the perception of vaccination risks. J Health Commun. 2015;20(8):920–9.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Winton Centre. Communicating the potential benefits and harms of the Astra-Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine. News. 2021. Available from: https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/latest-data-mhra-blood-clots-associated-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/. Cited 2021 Jul 19.

17.

Mostafapour M, Meyer SB, Scholer A. Exploring the effect of risk and benefit information provision on vaccination decision-making. Vaccine. 2019;37(44):6750–9.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Betsch C, Korn L, Felgendreff L, Eitze S, Schmid P, Sprengholz P et al. COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO Germany) - Wave 41. PsychArchives; 2021. Available from: https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/4222. Cited 2021 Jul 19.

19.

Wagenmakers EJ. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14(5):779–804.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kerr JR, Freeman ALJ, Marteau TM, van der Linden S. Effect of information about COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Side effects on behavioural intentions: two online experiments. Vaccines. 2021;9(4):379.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Wang Q, Yang L, Jin H, Lin L. Vaccination against COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptability and its predictors. Prev Med. 2021;150:106694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Ricciardi W. Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: a systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;40:101113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Zintel S, Flock C, Arbogast AL, Forster A, von Wagner C, Sieverding M. Gender Differences in the Intention to Get Vaccinated against COVID-19 - a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. SSRN Electron J. 2021; Available from: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3803323. Cited 2021 Sep 1.

24.

Parohan M, Yaghoubi S, Seraji A, Javanbakht MH, Sarraf P, Djalali M. Risk factors for mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Aging Male. 2020;23(5):1416–24.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Thust S, Thromboserisiko. Warum Vergleiche des Impfstoffs von Astrazeneca mit der Anti-Baby-Pille irreführend sind. Correctiv - Faktencheck. 2021. Available from: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2021/03/19/thromboserisiko-warum-vergleiche-des-impfstoffs-von-astrazeneca-mit-der-anti-baby-pille-irrefuehrend-sind/. Cited 2021 Sep 1

26.

Robertson E, Reeve KS, Niedzwiedz CL, Moore J, Blake M, Green M, et al. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK household longitudinal study. Brain Behav Immun. 2021;94:41–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker ML. Barriers of Influenza Vaccination Intention and Behavior – A Systematic Review of Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy, 2005–2016. Cowling BJ, editor. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170550.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Weinstein ND. Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed

29.

van der Pligt J. Risk perception and self-protective behavior. Eur Psychol. 1996;1(1):34–43.CrossRef

30.

Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):136–45.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Haase N, Schmid P, Betsch C. Impact of disease risk on the narrative bias in vaccination risk perceptions. Psychol Health. 2020;35(3):346–65.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15(5):487–501.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Witteman HO, Dickson M, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Kahn VC, Exe NL, et al. Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(4):443–53.CrossRef

34.

Australian Government, Department of Health. Weighing up the potential benefits against risk of harm from COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. 2021. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/04/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_0.pdf. Cited 2021 Apr 24.

35.

European Medicines Agency. Annex to Vaxzevria Art.5.3 - Visual risk contextualisation. 2021 . Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/chmp-annex/annex-vaxzevria-art53-visual-risk-contextualisation_en.pdf. Cited 2022 Feb 2.

36.

Betsch C, Schmid P, Heinemeier D, Korn L, Holtmann C, Böhm R. Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5 C psychological antecedents of vaccination. Angelillo IF, editor. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e020860.CrossRef

37.

Okan Y, Janssen E, Galesic M, Waters EA. Using the short graph literacy scale to predict precursors of health behavior Change. Med Decis Mak. 2019;39(3):183–95.CrossRef

38.

McNaughton CD, Cavanaugh KL, Kripalani S, Rothman RL, Wallston KA. Validation of a short, 3-Item Version of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(8):932–6.CrossRef

39.

Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Anal. 1994;14(6):1085–96.CrossRefPubMed

40.

European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project - Report on risk perception study module. European Medicines Agency; 2012. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/benefit-risk-methodology-project-report-risk-perception-study-module_en.pdf. Cited 2019 Aug 22.

41.

Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000;13(1):1–17.CrossRef

42.

Padilla LM, Creem-Regehr SH, Hegarty M, Stefanucci JK. Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018;3(1):29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Trevena LJ, Bonner C, Okan Y, Peters E, Gaissmaier W, Han PKJ, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: Advanced concepts. Med Decis Mak. 2021;0272989X:2199634.

44.

Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.CrossRef

45.

Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

de Figueiredo A, Simas C, Larson HJ. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its socio-demographic and emotional determinants: a multi-country cross-sectional study. Public and Global Health; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.30.21258074. Cited 2021 Sep 2.

47.

Smith M. How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines seen as internationally?. Reports. 2021 . Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2021/07/23/how-safe-are-covid-19-vaccines-seen-internationall. Cited 2021 Sep 13.

48.

Jensen EA, Wagoner B, Pfleger A, Herbig L, Watzlawik M. Making sense of unfamiliar COVID-19 vaccines: How national origin affects vaccination willingness. Tsuzuki S, editor. PLOS One. 2021;16(12):e0261273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Steinert JI, Sternberg H, Prince H, Fasolo B, Galizzi MM, Büthe T, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in eight European countries: prevalence, determinants, and heterogeneity. Sci Adv. 2022;8(17):eabm9825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Barceló J, Sheen GCH, Tung HH, Wu WC. Vaccine nationalism among the public: a cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination. Soc Sci Med. 2022;310:115278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Sprengholz P, Eitze S, Korn L, Siegers R, Betsch C. The power of choice: experimental evidence that freedom to choose a vaccine against COVID-19 improves willingness to be vaccinated. Eur J Intern Med. 2021;87:106–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Rebitschek FG, Ellermann C, Jenny MA, Siegel NA, Spinner C, Wagner GG. Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level. PLoS One. 2022;17(9):e0274186.CrossRef

53.

Freeman D, Loe BS, Yu LM, Freeman J, Chadwick A, Vaccari C, et al. Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(6):e416-427.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Rothman AJ, Leask J, Kempe A. Increasing vaccination: putting Psychological Science Into Action. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017;18(3):149–207.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(5):407–13.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments
Authors: Lisa Felgendreff
Regina Siegers
Leonie Otten
Cornelia Betsch
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Vaccination
COVID-19
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18057-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Evaluation of an online arts-based platform to support the health and well-being of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey

A comparative national-level analysis of government food system resilience activities across four developed countries at varying stages of planning

Psychometrics of the breastfeeding self-efficacy scale and short form: a systematic review

“That was one of my most difficult and biggest challenges”: experiences, preconditions and preventive measures of health-oriented leadership in virtual teams – A qualitative study with virtual leaders

Equity in vaccine coverage in Uganda from 2000 to 2016: revealing the multifaceted nature of inequity

Selective under-representation of Pacific peoples in population estimates for health indicator measurements in Aotearoa New Zealand misinforms policy making