Crowdsourcing interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines.
Behavioral interventions
Booster vaccination
COVID-19
Crowdsourcing
Journal
EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
27
04
2022
revised:
31
07
2022
accepted:
09
08
2022
entrez:
12
9
2022
pubmed:
13
9
2022
medline:
13
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions. We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts ( Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams. The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies. This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts (
Findings
UNASSIGNED
Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams.
Interpretation
UNASSIGNED
The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies.
Funding
UNASSIGNED
This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36090456
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101632
pii: S2589-5370(22)00362-5
pmc: PMC9444232
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101632Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
R.B., C.B., Y.L., G.C., J.L., M.S., and C.S. have nothing to disclose. P.S. reports personal fees from WHO outside the submitted work. N.B. reports personal fees from WHO, US CDC, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. J.L. reports grants from WHO, UNICEF, and US CDC, as well as personal fees from Therapeutic Goods Administration outside the submitted work. G.L. reports non-financial support for Level2, as well as personal fees from Florida Blue and Highmark Health outside the submitted work. M.K. reports grants from Austrian Science Fund (grant no.: SFB F63) related to the submitted work.
Références
Eur J Public Health. 2016 Jun;26(3):378-81
pubmed: 26297722
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Feb 8;119(6):
pubmed: 35105809
Lancet. 2021 Dec 4;398(10316):2093-2100
pubmed: 34756184
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2022 Aug;14(3):819-841
pubmed: 35193171
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2021 Nov;13(4):986-995
pubmed: 34032388
N Engl J Med. 2021 Dec 9;385(24):e84
pubmed: 34614326
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019 Dec;82 Suppl 3:S271-S278
pubmed: 31764263
PLoS One. 2022 May 24;17(5):e0268911
pubmed: 35609052
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jul;5(7):947-953
pubmed: 33972767
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017 Dec;18(3):149-207
pubmed: 29611455
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
BMC Public Health. 2013 Aug 15;13:756
pubmed: 23947336
Z Psychol. 2015;223(4):257-266
pubmed: 27453806
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42366
pubmed: 22927928
J Law Biosci. 2021 Sep 06;8(2):lsab027
pubmed: 34512996
J Health Psychol. 2022 May;27(6):1394-1407
pubmed: 34488460
J Appl Behav Anal. 1978 Summer;11(2):203-14
pubmed: 16795590
JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Feb 1;182(2):179-184
pubmed: 34846533
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 08;19(12):
pubmed: 35742292
Science. 2021 Nov 12;374(6569):879-882
pubmed: 34618594
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022 Mar;14:100317
pubmed: 35132400
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Mar 10;10(3):
pubmed: 35335057
Nature. 2021 Dec;600(7889):478-483
pubmed: 34880497