Center for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan.
Division of Infection Control and Prevention, Osaka University Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Front Public Health. 2022 Feb 11;10:775486. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.775486. eCollection 2022.
Two-sided messages that include two perspectives (i.e., risks and benefits) are more effective than one-sided messages that convey only one perspective (usually only the benefits). Refutational two-sided messages are effective for communicating risks regarding vaccines. To examine the effectiveness of refutational two-sided messages in risk communication regarding novel vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, we conducted the randomized controlled study based on a 3 × 3 × 2 mixed design (Intervention 1: vaccines against subcutaneous influenza, "novel severe infectious disease," or intranasal influenza; intervention 2: one-sided, non-refutational two-sided, or refutational two-sided messages; two questionnaires) using a Japanese online panel. Participants completed questionnaires before and after receiving an attack message (negative information). We evaluated the impact of attack messages on the willingness to be vaccinated, and the anticipated regret of inaction (ARI). Among 1,184 participants, there was a significant difference in the willingness to be vaccinated among the message groups ( < 0.01). After receiving the attack message, willingness to be vaccinated decreased in the one-sided message group and increased in the non-refutational two-sided and refutational two-sided message groups. Additionally, ARI in the refutational two-sided message groups was significantly higher than in the one-sided groups ( = 0.03). In conclusion, two-sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages in terms of willingness to be vaccinated. Furthermore, the high ARI in the refutational two-sided message group indicated that refutational two-sided messages were more effective than one-sided messages for communicating the risks of vaccines, especially those against emerging infectious diseases.
两面性信息（即风险和益处）比仅传达单一观点（通常仅为益处）的信息更有效。反驳性两面性信息在传达疫苗风险方面是有效的。为了研究反驳性两面性信息在新兴传染病新型疫苗风险沟通中的有效性，我们采用基于 3×3×2 混合设计（干预 1：皮下流感、“新型严重传染病”或鼻内流感疫苗；干预 2：片面的、非反驳性的两面性信息或反驳性两面性信息；两份问卷）的随机对照研究，使用日本在线小组进行。参与者在收到攻击信息（负面信息）前后完成问卷。我们评估了攻击信息对接种意愿和不作为的预期遗憾（ARI）的影响。在 1184 名参与者中，信息组之间的接种意愿存在显著差异（<0.01）。在收到攻击信息后，片面信息组的接种意愿下降，非反驳性两面信息组和反驳性两面信息组的接种意愿上升。此外，反驳性两面信息组的 ARI 明显高于片面信息组（=0.03）。总之，在接种意愿方面，两面性信息比片面信息更有效。此外，反驳性两面性信息组的高 ARI 表明，反驳性两面性信息在传达疫苗风险方面比片面信息更有效，尤其是针对新兴传染病的疫苗。
