Background: Although vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered the central strategy against the pandemic, uptake lags behind target rates. Method: To explore whether this rate could be enhanced by a nudging strategy that exploits the status quo bias, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in northern Italy comparing vaccination acceptance among 2000 adults, ages 50 to 59 years, who were either invited to set an appointment (opt-in group) or assigned an individual appointment (opt-out group). Results: Results indicate a difference of 3.2 percentage points, which represents a 32% relative increase in the vaccination rate for the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group. Conclusions: A significant portion of those who remain unvaccinated may not hold strong beliefs against vaccination but rather tend to inaction and may therefore be nudged toward vaccination with a reduction of action required. Reluctant adults (50-59 years), who had not yet received vaccines against COVID-19, were sent letters announcing appointment availability In an RCT, the status quo option in the notices influenced the rate of vaccine acceptance Nudging via pre-scheduled appointments encouraged vaccine uptake more than invitations to schedule did Switching the default option yielded a 32% relative increase (13.1% vs. 9.9%) in vaccination.

Nudging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake by Changing the Default: A Randomized Controlled Trial / Tentori, K.; Pighin, S.; Giovanazzi, G.; Grignolio Corsini, A.; Timberlake, B.; Ferro, A.. - In: MEDICAL DECISION MAKING. - ISSN 0272-989X. - 42:6(2022), pp. 837-841. [10.1177/0272989X221101536]

Nudging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake by Changing the Default: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Grignolio Corsini A.;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Background: Although vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered the central strategy against the pandemic, uptake lags behind target rates. Method: To explore whether this rate could be enhanced by a nudging strategy that exploits the status quo bias, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in northern Italy comparing vaccination acceptance among 2000 adults, ages 50 to 59 years, who were either invited to set an appointment (opt-in group) or assigned an individual appointment (opt-out group). Results: Results indicate a difference of 3.2 percentage points, which represents a 32% relative increase in the vaccination rate for the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group. Conclusions: A significant portion of those who remain unvaccinated may not hold strong beliefs against vaccination but rather tend to inaction and may therefore be nudged toward vaccination with a reduction of action required. Reluctant adults (50-59 years), who had not yet received vaccines against COVID-19, were sent letters announcing appointment availability In an RCT, the status quo option in the notices influenced the rate of vaccine acceptance Nudging via pre-scheduled appointments encouraged vaccine uptake more than invitations to schedule did Switching the default option yielded a 32% relative increase (13.1% vs. 9.9%) in vaccination.
2022
Inglese
SAGE Publications Inc.
42
6
837
841
5
Pubblicato
Esperti anonimi
Internazionale
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
COVID-19
default option
nudging
status quo bias
vaccination
vaccine hesitancy
No
Nudging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake by Changing the Default: A Randomized Controlled Trial / Tentori, K.; Pighin, S.; Giovanazzi, G.; Grignolio Corsini, A.; Timberlake, B.; Ferro, A.. - In: MEDICAL DECISION MAKING. - ISSN 0272-989X. - 42:6(2022), pp. 837-841. [10.1177/0272989X221101536]
none
6
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
262
Tentori, K.; Pighin, S.; Giovanazzi, G.; Grignolio Corsini, A.; Timberlake, B.; Ferro, A.
1 Contributo su Rivista::1.1 Articolo in rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/202118
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 17
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 24
social impact