The Library
Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Tools
Tools
Tools
Parsons, Joanne, Newby, Katie V. and French, David P. (2018) Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? – A systematic review and meta‐analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 23 (4). pp. 1084-1106. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12340 ISSN 1359-107X.
|
PDF
WRAP-Do-interventions-risk-increase-risk-subsequent-vaccination-intentions-uptake-systematic-review-2021.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (229Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12340
Abstract
Purpose
There 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.
Method
A 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.
Results
Eighteen 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.
Conclusions
Overall, 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/.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine |
||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School | ||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Health behavior , Health behavior -- Psychological aspects, Cognitive therapy , Vaccination, Risk-taking (Psychology) , Communicable diseases -- Prevention , Communicable diseases -- Prevention -- Mathematical models | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | British Journal of Health Psychology | ||||||||
| Publisher: | British Psychological Soc. | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 1359-107X | ||||||||
| Official Date: | November 2018 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 23 | ||||||||
| Number: | 4 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 1084-1106 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjhp.12340 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access (Creative Commons) | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 19 November 2021 | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 19 November 2021 | ||||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
