Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Joanne Parsons, Katie Newby, David French

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

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 Randomised 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. Protocol (CRD42015029365) available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1084-1106
JournalBritish Journal of Health Psychology
Volume23
Issue number4
Early online date17 Sep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Vaccination
Risk-Taking
Randomized Controlled Trials
Health

Keywords

  • Vaccination
  • Randomised Controlled Trial
  • Uptake
  • Risk Appraisal

Cite this

@article{1f15080b6fef4e869792e4798c2ac5d2,
title = "Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake?: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
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 Randomised 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. Protocol (CRD42015029365) available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/",
keywords = "Vaccination, Randomised Controlled Trial, Uptake, Risk Appraisal",
author = "Joanne Parsons and Katie Newby and David French",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/bjhp.12340",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "1084--1106",
journal = "British Journal of Health Psychology",
issn = "1359-107X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake?

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Parsons, Joanne

AU - Newby, Katie

AU - French, David

PY - 2018/11

Y1 - 2018/11

N2 - 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 Randomised 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. Protocol (CRD42015029365) available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/

AB - 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 Randomised 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. Protocol (CRD42015029365) available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/

KW - Vaccination

KW - Randomised Controlled Trial

KW - Uptake

KW - Risk Appraisal

U2 - 10.1111/bjhp.12340

DO - 10.1111/bjhp.12340

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 1084

EP - 1106

JO - British Journal of Health Psychology

JF - British Journal of Health Psychology

SN - 1359-107X

IS - 4

ER -