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

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Vaccine Hesitancy
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: abstract vs concrete texts

Detailed 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?

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 1068
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Italy
  • Bari, Italy, 70121
    • University of Bari Aldo Moro

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 64 years (ADULT)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

unvaccinated individuals

Exclusion Criteria:

vaccinated individuals

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: OTHER
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Interventional Model: PARALLEL
• Masking: NONE

Number of Arms

5

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
OTHER: concrete text; Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n= 164; n=163)	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.; Other Names: abstract vs concrete tasks
OTHER: abstract text; Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=155; n=153)	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.; Other Names: abstract vs concrete tasks
OTHER: abstract task; Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=54; n=55)	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.; Other Names: abstract vs concrete tasks
OTHER: concrete task; Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=55; n=56)	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.; Other Names: abstract vs concrete tasks
OTHER: control; Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=103; n=110)	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.; Other Names: abstract vs concrete tasks

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
vaccine hesitancy; number of participants accepting the vaccination	revealed preferences	same day

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Bari Aldo Moro

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• 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.
• Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):403-21. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403.
• 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.
• 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.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (ACTUAL): June 2, 2021
• Primary Completion (ACTUAL): June 20, 2021
• Study Completion (ACTUAL): January 31, 2022

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: October 13, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 13, 2022
• First Posted (ACTUAL): October 17, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (ACTUAL): October 17, 2022
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 13, 2022
• Last Verified: October 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: vaccine hesitancy
• Other Study ID Numbers: 00001

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO
• IPD Plan Description: No personal data have been collected. Individual responses to the questionnaire will be shared without personal information of respondents on a public repository.

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No