Böhm Robert, Betsch Cornelia, Litovsky Yana, Sprengholz Philipp, Brewer Noel T, Chapman Gretchen, Leask Julie, Loewenstein George, Scherzer Martha, Sunstein Cass R, Kirchler Michael
Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria.
Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen; 1354 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Nov;53:101632. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101632. Epub 2022 Sep 5.
COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions.
We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts ( = 78 from 17 countries) proposed 46 unique interventions. To reduce noise and potential bias, in the second phase (January 2022), experts ( = 307 from 34 countries) and representative general population samples from the UK ( = 299) and the US ( = 300) rated the proposed interventions on several evaluation criteria, including effectiveness and acceptability, on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams.
The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies.
This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.
在许多国家,新冠病毒加强疫苗的接种率落后于初次接种率。政府和非政府机构依靠一系列干预措施来提高加强针的接种率。然而,对于专家和公众如何评估这些干预措施,人们知之甚少。
我们采用了一种新颖的众包方法,以快速了解哪些干预措施最有希望促进新冠病毒加强疫苗的接种。在第一阶段(2021年12月),国际专家(来自17个国家的78人)提出了46种独特的干预措施。为了减少干扰和潜在偏差,在第二阶段(2022年1月),专家(来自34个国家的307人)以及来自英国(299人)和美国(300人)的具有代表性的普通人群样本,根据包括有效性和可接受性在内的多项评估标准,对提出的干预措施进行5级李克特量表评分。
制裁被认为可能最有效,但接受度最低。专家样本和普通人群样本的评估结果相当一致。在各评估组中,在有效性和可接受性方面都获得最积极评价的干预措施有:接种疫苗后休假一天、经济激励、税收优惠、宣传活动和流动接种团队。
研究结果为政府和非政府机构在决定实施哪些干预措施方面提供了有用的见解。此外,所应用的众包方法未来可能用于其他研究,以快速获取有关(健康)政策比较评估的见解。
本研究获得了奥地利科学基金(SFB F63)和维也纳大学的资助。