Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35792410›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022

Opt-out policy and its improvements promote COVID-19 vaccinations.

Xin Liu, Ning Zhao, Shu Li, Rui Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xin LiuCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China.
Ning ZhaoCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China.
Shu LiCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China.
Rui ZhengCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: zhengrui@psych.ac.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleVaccination uptake is a major strategy to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 and curb the transmission of COVID-19. However, many people remain unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

objectiveUsing default nudges, the present study examines (a) whether opt-out policy and its improvements could increase intention and attitude to get vaccinated and (b) whether these default effects differ across diverse risk-perception groups.

methodAn online experiment with 1926 unvaccinated Chinese respondents was conducted in February 2021. We measured willingness to be vaccinated after informing opt-in policy, standard opt-out policy, and its five improvements (opt-out education, opt-out opportunity, opt-out social norm, opt-out feedback, and opt-out opportunity). Risk perception of the pandemic of COVID-19 and vaccination were also measured.

results(a) Opt-out policy and its improvement (except the opt-out transparency) increased intentions to be vaccinated. Policies with a vaccination default did not weaken people's attitude toward policy and policymakers compared with the opt-in policy, but participants in the transparent improvement group reported lower freedom of choice than those in the opt-out group. (b) Further latent profile analysis revealed four classes underlying risk perception: risk exaggerators, risk deniers, disease-specific risk perceivers, and vaccine-specific risk perceivers. But there was no conclusive evidence that the effect of risk perception differs as a function of defaults.

conclusionsThese findings provide new psychological evidence for formulating more targeted vaccination policies and highlight the importance of risk perception to understand vaccination intentions.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansIntentionPolicySARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19Default nudgeOpt-inOpt-outOpt-out improvementsVaccination

Identifiers

PMID35792410
PMCPMC9217684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.