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

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Vaccine Hesitancy Behavior Health Behavior Treatment Adherence and Compliance Treatment Refusal Vaccination Hesitancy Vaccination Refusal

Age range

18 year–64 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Bari Aldo Moro

Bari, 70121, Italy

About this study

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:

participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in an abstract language
participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in a more concrete language
participants performing abstract categorization task
participants performing concrete categorization task
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?

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

unvaccinated individuals

Exclusion criteria

vaccinated individuals

Treatment and study plan

abstract vs concrete texts

Other

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.

Other names: abstract vs concrete tasks

Primary outcomes

vaccine hesitancy; number of participants accepting the vaccination

Time frame: same day

revealed preferences

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Bari Aldo Moro

Other

Registry information

Acronym: COVANEW

Important dates

Study start: 2021
Primary completion: 2021
Study completion: 2022
First posted: Oct 17, 2022
Registry last updated: Oct 17, 2022

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.

Completed