Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 12;17(9):e0274186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274186. eCollection 2022.
For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines.
We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison).
Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds.
Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.
为了通过疫苗有效控制 SARS-CoV-2 大流行，需要大多数人接种疫苗。因此，了解如何参考个人偏好来告知公众，同时承认鼓励接种疫苗是社会偏好，这一点非常重要。根据知情决策的医疗保健标准，需要比较接种（不接种）的益处和危害，以告知犹豫不决和持怀疑态度的人。为了测试经过验证的事实框，一种既定的风险沟通格式，并告知其发展，我们研究了它们对 COVID-19 疫苗的知识和评估的贡献。
我们进行了四项研究（研究 1、2 和 4 是针对 N=1,942 至 N=6,056 的全人群调查）：研究 1 评估了德国在三个月内疫苗接种知识与意愿之间的关系。研究 2 评估了德国人口的相应信息差距和需求。与此同时，一项采用混合设计（呈现格式；前后比较）的实验（研究 3）使用便利样本（N=719）评估了事实框对风险认知和恐惧的影响。研究 4 检验了两种事实框格式对告知疫苗接种意愿的有效性，采用混合实验设计：组间（呈现格式）和组内（前后比较）。
研究 1 表明，疫苗接种知识和疫苗接种意愿在 2020 年 11 月至 2021 年 2 月期间有所增加。研究 2 揭示了客观的信息要求和主观的信息需求。研究 3 表明，事实框格式在调整 COVID-19 风险认知方面是有效的。基于这些结果，在德国的一个国家卫生当局的帮助下，对事实框进行了修订和实施。研究 4 表明，简单的事实框可以增加犹豫不决和未决定者的疫苗接种知识和积极评价。
事实框可以告知犹豫不决和未决定者的 COVID-19 疫苗接种意愿，而不会威胁到人群的社会疫苗接种目标。
