Jäckle Sebastian, Timmis James K
Department of Political Science, University of Freiburg, 79085, Freiburg, Germany.
Athena Institute for Research on Innovation and Communication in Health and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
BMC Public Health. 2025 Jun 4;25(1):2071. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23279-x.
SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have significantly reduced human and economic losses. Nevertheless, vaccine hesitancy remains a major issue in many countries, including Germany. Recent studies have shown that public health framing and incentives can boost immunization rates. However, available evidence is fragmented and inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of different framing messages, types of incentives, and the size of financial incentives across different populations.
This randomized, controlled survey experiment elicited the attitudes of 6,685 Germans towards 4 financial/non-financial SARS-CoV-2 immunization incentives (food voucher, football tickets, participation in lottery, immediate monetary compensation), and tested whether framing (individual/collective, health/economic consequences) affected said attitudes. We assigned participants to five study arms (control: no frame; experiment: 1 of 4 frames) and measured attitudes towards immunization incentives, and the amount of monetary compensation deemed appropriate, should such an incentive be considered.
While > 75% of our sample considered all 4 incentives to be not meaningful, all frames increased favorable views towards the financial incentives lottery/money and the average amount deemed acceptable for immediate monetary compensation. Interaction models showed that all frames have similar effects across core subgroups, e.g. age-cohorts, gender, vaccine doses.
Across a sample of 6,685 Germans, we show that 4 different frames detailing the potential individual/collective consequences of COVID-19 have very similar effects on attitudes towards monetary incentives for SARS-CoV-2 immunization. Our results suggest that the existence of frames rather than specific narratives is key to increasing favorable views towards immunization incentives.
Not applicable.
严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2（SARS-CoV-2）疫苗已显著减少了人员和经济损失。然而，疫苗犹豫在包括德国在内的许多国家仍然是一个主要问题。最近的研究表明，公共卫生框架和激励措施可以提高免疫接种率。然而，关于不同框架信息、激励类型以及不同人群的经济激励规模的有效性，现有证据零散且尚无定论。
这项随机对照调查实验调查了6685名德国人对4种财务/非财务SARS-CoV-2免疫激励措施（食品券、足球门票、参与抽奖、即时货币补偿）的态度，并测试了框架（个人/集体、健康/经济后果）是否会影响上述态度。我们将参与者分为五个研究组（对照组：无框架；实验组：4种框架中的一种），并测量了对免疫激励措施的态度，以及如果考虑这种激励措施，认为合适的货币补偿金额。
虽然我们样本中超过75%的人认为所有4种激励措施都没有意义，但所有框架都增加了对抽奖/金钱等财务激励措施的好感度，以及认为即时货币补偿可接受的平均金额。交互模型显示，所有框架在核心亚组（如年龄组、性别、疫苗接种剂量）中具有相似的效果。
在6685名德国人的样本中，我们表明，详细说明2019冠状病毒病潜在个人/集体后果的4种不同框架对SARS-CoV-2免疫货币激励措施的态度有非常相似的影响。我们的结果表明，框架的存在而非具体叙述是增加对免疫激励措施好感度的关键。
不适用。
