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

    3 Citations (Scopus)
    2 Downloads (Pure)

    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
    Number of pages23
    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 -