Trial reportVaccine2022
Experimental pre-tests of public health communications on the COVID-19 vaccine: A null finding for medical endorsement, risk and altruism.
Trial report in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in the WHO European Region and in North America (United States and Canada): A Systematic Review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Communication-based interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake: a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Say it right: measuring the impact of different communication strategies on the decision to get vaccinated.BMC public health · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVaccination campaigns against COVID-19 will only be successful if enough people want to take the vaccine. We tested a government communications intervention to encourage uptake.
designA pre-registered randomised controlled trial.
methodsA large, nationally representative sample were randomly assigned to see one of eight posters. The posters varied by image (general practitioner or two hospital doctors) and message (control with public health guidance not related to vaccination, endorsement of the vaccine from the pictured doctor, endorsement with information about COVID-19 risk, endorsement with information about risk and appeal to get vaccinated to protect friends and family). The posters were presented as part of a larger study. The main outcomes were intention to be vaccinated and how soon people would be willing to be vaccinated.
resultsThe posters induced different reactions indicating that participants had engaged with them. The hospital image was generally preferred to the GP image. Perhaps critically, all intervention messages were trusted less than a control message which did not mention the vaccine (Control Poster Mean = 5.65, SE = 0.09 vs. Poster M Mean = 5.18, SE = 0.09, p <.001; vs. Poster M + R Mean = 5.11, SE = 0.09, p <.001; vs. Poster M + R + F Mean = 5.33, SE = 0.09, p =.01). There were no effects of poster type on intention to take the vaccine or how soon people were willing to take it.
conclusionAlthough the intervention messages were based on the strongest correlates of vaccine hesitancy identified by contemporaneous surveys, none was effective. More recent research suggests that focusing on the risk of COVID-19 may be less effective than focusing on the benefits of vaccination. Null findings can be as important as positive findings for designing public health campaigns. This study informed government communications about the COVID-19 vaccine.
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.