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

Study Overview
=================
Brief 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.

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: 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?

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

Conditions
-----------------
Vaccine Hesitancy

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: abstract vs concrete texts


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: unvaccinated individuals Exclusion Criteria: vaccinated individuals

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 64 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Other
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Other: concrete text<br>Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n= 164; n=163) | Other: abstract vs concrete texts<br>* 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.<br>* Other names: abstract vs concrete tasks;|
| Other: abstract text<br>Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=155; n=153) | Other: abstract vs concrete texts<br>* 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.<br>* Other names: abstract vs concrete tasks;|
| Other: abstract task<br>Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=54; n=55) | Other: abstract vs concrete texts<br>* 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.<br>* Other names: abstract vs concrete tasks;|
| Other: concrete task<br>Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=55; n=56) | Other: abstract vs concrete texts<br>* 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.<br>* Other names: abstract vs concrete tasks;|
| Other: control<br>Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=103; n=110) | Other: abstract vs concrete texts<br>* 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.<br>* 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 | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
vaccine hesitancy