SynthesisBritish journal of health psychology2018
Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in British journal of health psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies to promote vaccination uptake.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation.Vaccine · 2023Pooled it
- Are we asking the right questions? A dive into the knowledge, attitudes, and practices literature on behavior change in tick bite prevention.BMC public health · 2026Review
- Codesigning a Digital Type 2 Diabetes Risk Communication Tool in Singapore: Qualitative Participatory Action Research Approach.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Secondary Risk in COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions: A Theoretical Contribution to the Protection Motivation Paradigm.Journal of applied social science · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of a Digital Intervention in Increasing Flu Vaccination-Related Risk Appraisal, Intention to Vaccinate and Vaccination Behaviour Among Pregnant Women.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2022Article
- Is Mexico's population hesitant towards COVID-19 vaccines? A 2021 survey on different levels of hesitancy and its determinants.SSM - population health · 2022Article
- Explaining higher Covid-19 vaccination among some US primary care professionals.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
- Understanding vaccine acceptance and demand-and ways to increase them.Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2020Review
- Adult vaccination as part of a healthy lifestyle: moving from medical intervention to health promotion.Annals of medicine · 2019Review
- The development of a digital intervention to increase influenza vaccination amongst pregnant women.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is good evidence that for many behaviours, increasing risk appraisal can lead to a change in behaviour, heightened when efficacy appraisals are also increased. The present systematic review addressed whether interventions presenting a risk message increase risk appraisal and an increase in vaccination intentions and uptake.
methodA systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of interventions presenting a risk message and measuring risk appraisal and intentions and uptake post-intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses investigated the size of the effect that interventions had on vaccination risk appraisal and on vaccination behaviour or intention to vaccinate, and the size of the relationship between vaccination risk appraisal and vaccination intentions and uptake.
resultsEighteen studies were included and 16 meta-analysed. Interventions overall had small significant effects on risk appraisal (d = 0.161, p = .047) and perceptions of susceptibility (d = 0.195, p = .025), but no effect on perceptions of severity (d = -0.036, p = .828). Interventions showed no effect on intention to vaccinate (d = 0.138, p = .195) and no effect on vaccination behaviour (d = 0.043, p = .826). Interventions typically did not include many behaviour change techniques (BCTs), with the most common BCT unique to intervention conditions being 'Information about Health Consequences'. Few of the included studies attempted to, or successfully increased, efficacy appraisals.
conclusionsOverall, there is a lack of good-quality primary studies, and existing interventions are suboptimal. The inclusion of additional BCTs, including those to target efficacy appraisals, could increase intervention effectiveness. The protocol (CRD42015029365) is available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Previous research indicates that an increase in risk appraisal is associated with increased uptake in health-related behaviours. Research suggests that interventions increasing risk appraisal have a greater effect on intention when elements of efficacy appraisals are simultaneously increased. What does this study add? This is the first systematic review to examine the effect of interventions on risk appraisal and vaccination uptake using only experimental studies. Limitations of the interventions themselves, and those caused by study methods and reporting, mean that the potential value of this type of review is lost. Instead, its value is in shining a light on the paucity of experimental studies in this area, and the quality of methods and reporting used. Future experimental studies should examine interventions that focus exclusively on increasing risk and efficacy appraisal compared to controls, use conditional measures of risk, and improve reporting to enable both more accurate coding of intervention content and more accurate assessments of study bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.