Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 30;17(3):e0265011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265011. eCollection 2022.
While mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 have inoculated almost 200 million Americans and billions more worldwide, significant pockets of vaccine hesitancy remain. Research has firmly established that vaccine efficacy is an important driver of public vaccine acceptance and choice. However, current vaccines offer widely varying levels of protection against different adverse health outcomes of COVID-19. This study employs an experiment embedded on a survey of 1,194 US adults in June 2021 to examine how communications about vaccine efficacy affect vaccine choice. The experiment manipulated how vaccine efficacy was defined across four treatments: (1) protection against symptomatic infection; (2) protection against severe illness; (3) protection against hospitalization/death; (4) efficacy data on all three metrics. The control group received no efficacy information. Subjects were asked to choose between a pair of vaccines-a one-dose viral vector vaccine or two-dose mRNA vaccine-whose efficacy data varied across the four experimental treatment groups. Efficacy data for each vaccine on each dimension were adapted from clinical trial data on the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Among all respondents, only modest preference gaps between the two vaccines emerged in the control group and when the two vaccines' roughly equivalent efficacy data against hospitalization and death were reported. Strong preferences for a two-dose mRNA vaccine emerged in treatments where its higher efficacy against symptomatic or severe illness was reported, as well as in the treatment where data on all three efficacy criteria were reported. Unvaccinated respondents preferred a one-dose viral vector vaccine when only efficacy data against hospitalization or death was presented. Black and Latino respondents were significantly more likely to choose the one-shot viral vector vaccine in the combined efficacy treatment than were whites. Results speak to the importance of understanding how communications about vaccine efficacy affect public preferences in an era of increasing uncertainty about efficacy against variants.
虽然针对 COVID-19 的大规模疫苗接种运动已经为近 2 亿美国人以及全球数十亿人接种了疫苗,但仍然存在着大量的疫苗犹豫。研究已经明确确立,疫苗效力是公众接受和选择疫苗的重要驱动因素。然而,目前的疫苗对 COVID-19 的不同不良健康结果提供了广泛不同的保护水平。本研究通过 2021 年 6 月对 1194 名美国成年人的调查中的一项实验,研究了关于疫苗效力的信息如何影响疫苗选择。该实验通过四种处理方式操纵了疫苗效力的定义:(1)对有症状感染的保护;(2)对严重疾病的保护;(3)对住院/死亡的保护;(4)所有三种指标的疗效数据。对照组没有收到疗效信息。要求受试者在一对疫苗之间做出选择——一种是一剂病毒载体疫苗,另一种是两剂 mRNA 疫苗——其疗效数据在四个实验处理组中有所不同。每种疫苗在每个维度上的疗效数据都是根据强生/杨森和辉瑞/生物技术公司临床试验数据改编的。在所有受访者中,只有在对照组和当报告两种疫苗在住院和死亡方面大致相当的疗效数据时,两种疫苗之间才出现适度的偏好差距。当报告其在有症状或严重疾病方面的更高效力时,以及当报告所有三种效力标准的数据时,人们对两剂 mRNA 疫苗的强烈偏好就会出现。当仅报告针对住院或死亡的疗效数据时,未接种疫苗的受访者更喜欢一剂病毒载体疫苗。黑人和拉丁裔受访者在合并疗效治疗中选择单剂量病毒载体疫苗的可能性明显高于白人。研究结果表明,在对变异体效力的不确定性不断增加的时代,了解关于疫苗效力的信息如何影响公众偏好的重要性。