ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025
[Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence-based health information is a key tool in health communication to support informed decision-making. In contrast, there are behavioural approaches. The suitability of the different approaches seems to depend on the initial willingness to vaccinate and the information needs (e.g. of undecided people, sceptics).
methodsUsing the longitudinal Corona Online Opinion Panel Survey Special (COMPASS) survey panel, we conducted a preregistered experiment (N = 2944) in May 2021 involving information presentations on vaccination: evidence-based tabular and graphical fact box vs. norm and moral nudge vs. vaccination advertising. Before and after vaccination education, vaccination intentions, understanding of vaccination, and attitudes toward and trust in vaccines were measured among those willing, inclined, sceptical, opposed and undecided.
resultsFact boxes supported understanding of vaccination. Graphical fact boxes reinforced vaccination intention of undecideds without information needs. The moral nudge, but not the norm nudge, increased the vaccination intention of vaccination sceptics and undecided people without information needs. No negative influence on trust in vaccines could be identified. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based information does not counteract the social goal of high immunisation coverage of the population. Depending on the intention to vaccinate and the need for information, different target groups react differently to vaccination communication. Questions of ethical and legal responsibility should be discussed with regard to nudging and vaccination advertising.
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.