The Effect of Newspaper Reporting on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: a Randomised Controlled Trial

Vaccine Hesitancy Clinical Trial

— COVANEW  

Official title:

The Effect of Newspaper Reporting on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: a Randomised Controlled Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05582564
• Other study ID #: 00001
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: June 2, 2021
• Est. completion date: January 31, 2022

Study information

• Verified date: October 2022
• Source: University of Bari Aldo Moro
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be observed at different rates in different countries. 1,068 people were surveyed in France and Italy to inquire about individual potential acceptance, focusing on time preferences, in a risk-return framework: having the vaccination today, in a month, and in 3 months; perceived risks of vaccination and COVID-19; and expected benefit of the vaccine. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to understand how everyday stimuli, such as fact-based news about vaccines, impact on audience acceptance of vaccination. The main experiment involved two groups of participants and two different articles about vaccine-related thrombosis taken from two Italian newspapers. One article used a more abstract description and language, and the other used a more anecdotical description and concrete language; each group read only one of these articles. Two other groups were assigned categorization tasks; one was asked to complete a concrete categorization task and the other an abstract categorization task.

Description:

The goal of this RCT is to learn how journalistic news can affect vaccine hesitancy. 2 cohorts of unvaccinated individual, one Italian, one French. 5 arms design: 1. participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in an abstract language 2. participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in a more concrete language 3. participants performing abstract categorization task 4. participants performing concrete categorization task 5. control group answering questionnaire Research questions: i) Does a more abstract vs concrete language increase the willingness to receive the vaccine? ii) Does a more abstract vs concrete mindset increase the willingness to receive the vaccine? iii) Is a gender effect detectable?

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 1068
• Est. completion date: January 31, 2022
• Est. primary completion date: June 20, 2021
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 64 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

unvaccinated individuals Exclusion Criteria: vaccinated individuals

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Vaccine Hesitancy

Intervention

Other:
• abstract vs concrete texts
The main experiment involved two groups of participants and two different articles about vaccine-related thrombosis taken from two Italian newspapers. One article used a more abstract descriptive style and language, while the other used a more anecdotical style and concrete language: each group read only one of these articles. Both articles are the same length and describe an episode of vaccine-related thrombosis. The abstract text uses a more formal and impersonal language, reporting more scientific considerations; the concrete text uses a more familiar and emotional style and provides a more anecdotical description of the case. Texts were also weighted according to a concreteness semantic vocabulary. French received translated versions.Two other groups were assigned categorization tasks; one was asked to complete a concrete categorization task and the other an abstract categorization task.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Italy	University of Bari Aldo Moro	Bari

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Bari Aldo Moro

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Italy, 

References & Publications (4)

Liberman N, Trope Y. Traversing psychological distance. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):364-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001. Epub 2014 Apr 10. Review. — View Citation

Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1. Epub 2021 Feb 5. Erratum in: Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar 8;:. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jul;5(7):960. — View Citation

MacDonald NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036. Epub 2015 Apr 17. — View Citation

Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):403-21. Review. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	vaccine hesitancy; number of participants accepting the vaccination	revealed preferences	same day