Reduce vaccine hesitation with interactive risk ratio simulations

Adults presented with interactive risk ratio simulations are more likely to positively change COVID-19 vaccination Intentions compared to adults presented in traditional information formats, according to a study published in JAMA network open.¹

The COVID-19 vaccine is an important tool to combat the pandemic, but most countries still fall below the coverage required to ease the pressure on hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs), with two Only 65% ​​of Americans are vaccinated. Adults who are hesitant about vaccination often need information about the benefits and harms of vaccines in order to make a vaccination decision. This study aimed to assess the value of interactive risk ratio simulations in changing vaccine intentions in adults compared to text-based formats.

A cross-sectional national sample of COVID-19 unvaccinated and reluctant residents of Germany constitutes the patient sample, which is a probability-based sample maintained by a survey and analysis company. taken from the internet panel of Respondents in this sample completed an online survey between April 1, 2022 and he May 21, 2022, indicating whether they had been vaccinated or not, and their intention to be vaccinated. . Only those who responded that they were likely to get the vaccine, were unsure about it, or likely not to get it were included in the overall study.

Participants were also asked about whether they work in healthcare, their satisfaction with the containment strategies put in place by the government, their assessment of the benefit-harm ratio of the COVID-19 vaccine, and their general attitudes towards COVID-19. rice field. vaccination. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: a text-based group or an interactive simulation. The content was the same for both groups.

The primary endpoint of this study was participants with positive changes in vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm ratings. There were 1255 participants with a mean (SD) age he of 43.6 (13.5) years. 87.6% reported that he was 18 to her 59, 52.6% were female, and 60.5% were eligible for or graduated from higher education.

Overall, vaccination hesitant participants were more educated and younger than the general German population.

Additionally, participants in the intervention group were more negative in their assessment of benefits and harms, with 55.0% feeling that the harms of the vaccine “clearly” or “somewhat” outweighed the benefits.The intervention group was also less likely to receive a higher level of education (odds ratio [OR]0.72; 95% CI 0.57-0.91), likelihood of being satisfied with COVID-19 containment strategies (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.20-1.94) and long-term adverse effects of vaccines (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.20-1.94) 95% CI, 1.04-1.39).

The researchers found that interactive simulation was associated with a higher likelihood of change in intent to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to controls (19.5% vs. 15.3%, respectively). %; Adjusted OR [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07–1.96). Respondents were also more likely to improve benefit versus harm ratings when using simulation compared to controls (32.6% vs 18.0%; aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.64-2.80 ). The net advantage of interactive simulation was 5.3 percentage points (9.8% vs. 4.5%) for vaccination and 18.3 percentage points (25.3% vs. 7.0%) for benefit versus harm assessment.

The proportion of respondents who declined was similar in both groups for vaccination intentions and benefit-to-harm ratings.

Male participants (aOR 1.37; 95% CI 1.02-1.85) were eligible or had completed tertiary education (aOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.35-2.57) and were satisfied with government containment strategies ( aOR , 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.46) were more likely to result in positive changes in immunization intentions, but no change in benefit-to-harm ratings. HCWs were also 53% more likely to show a positive change in benefit versus harm ratings after the intervention (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.36), but less likely to show a positive change in intent to vaccinate. 53% less likely to show (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.90).

The generalizability of the results may be limited by the German origin of all participants and the unclear behavioral intentions for long-term behavior of residents due to the cross-sectional design of the study. I have. Participants were not asked why they changed their minds.

The researchers concluded that “vaccine hesitance may benefit more from interactive risk simulations than from text-based formats.”

This article originally appeared on AJMC.

reference

1. Wegwarth O, Mansmann U, Zepp F, Luhmann D, Hertwig R, Scherer M. Vaccine information via interactive simulation and text among COVID-19 vaccine hesitant adults in the German Omicron wave. Intention to vaccinate after receiving JAMA net openPublished online February 16, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.56208