Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

Daniel Freeman*, Bao Sheng Loe, Ly-Mee Yu, Jason Freeman, Andrew Chadwick, Cristian Vaccari, Milensu Shanyinde, Victoria Harris, Felicity Waite, Laina Rosebrock, Ariane Petit, Samantha Vanderslott, Stephan Lewandowsky, Michael Larkin, Stefania Innocenti, Andrew Pollard, Helen McShane, Sinéad Lambe

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BackgroundThe effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance.MethodsFor this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7–35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291.FindingsFrom Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference –1·49, 95% CI –2·16 to –0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (−0·91, –1·58 to –0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (−0·86, –1·53 to –0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (−0·97, 95% CI –1·64 to –0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (−1·01, –1·68 to –0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes.InterpretationIn the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E416-E427
Number of pages12
JournalThe Lancet Public Health
Volume6
Issue number6
Early online date12 May 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The study was jointly funded by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. DF is a NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. FW is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Doctoral Fellowship (102176/B/13/Z). SL has funding from the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 964728 (JITSUVAX). We would like to thank the members of the Oxford Vaccine Public and Patient Involvement Group who provided feedback on the information condition texts.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

Structured keywords

  • Cognitive Science
  • Memory
  • Covid19

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this