study

Interventions involving nudge theory for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Interventions involving nudge theory for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.: New approaches to mitigate vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine uptake are urgently needed. Nudging has shown effective results in several health areas. However, the effectiveness of interventions involving nudge theory in increasing COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials published before December 31, 2022, to determine whether interventions involving nudge theory improved COVID-19 vaccination behavior and intent. Risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as pooled measures to assess vaccination behavior. Intention to vaccinate was reported in a narrative synthesis. Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 176,125 participants were included. Interventions involving nudge theory weakly boosted the COVID-19 vaccine uptake rate (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.07, 1.36], p < .01). Subgroup analysis showed a weak positive effect of social norms (RR = 2.04, 95% CI [1.61, 2.57]), defaults (RR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.03, 1.69]), and salient reminders (RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.36]). Nudge interventions integrating multiple components were more efficacious in increasing vaccination rates compared to nudge alone. The effect of nudging interventions weakened over time (p < .001). Most studies (10 of 11) involving vaccination intention outcomes showed positive or partially positive results. Interventions involving nudge theory can promote COVID-19 vaccination behavior and intentions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved). Evidenzgrad A, Risk of Bias unclear.

Quelle

Autor:innen: Jiarong Zhang, Hui Jin

Jahr: 2024

Journal/Quelle: Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association

DOI: 10.1037/hea0001400

APA-Quelle

Zhang, J., & Jin, H. (2024). Interventions involving nudge theory for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001400

Forschungsfrage / Summary

New approaches to mitigate vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine uptake are urgently needed. Nudging has shown effective results in several health areas. However, the effectiveness of interventions involving nudge theory in increasing COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials published before December 31, 2022, to determine whether interventions involving nudge theory improved COVID-19 vaccination behavior and intent. Risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as pooled measures to assess vaccination behavior. Intention to vaccinate was reported in a narrative synthesis. Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 176,125 participants were included. Interventions involving nudge theory weakly boosted the COVID-19 vaccine uptake rate (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.07, 1.36], p < .01). Subgroup analysis showed a weak positive effect of social norms (RR = 2.04, 95% CI [1.61, 2.57]), defaults (RR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.03, 1.69]), and salient reminders (RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.36]). Nudge interventions integrating multiple components were more efficacious in increasing vaccination rates compared to nudge alone. The effect of nudging interventions weakened over time (p < .001). Most studies (10 of 11) involving vaccination intention outcomes showed positive or partially positive results. Interventions involving nudge theory can promote COVID-19 vaccination behavior and intentions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Methode und Evidenzqualität

Studientyp: Studie

Risk of Bias: unclear

Evidenzgrad: A

Key Findings

Evidence-Fill Queue: Findings werden aus Volltext, Abstract und Review-Notizen konsolidiert.

Effektgrößen / Outcomes

Evidence-Fill Queue: Effektgrößen und Outcomes werden aus Volltext-Extraktionen priorisiert.

Conversion-Implikationen

Evidence-Fill Queue: Conversion-Implikationen werden nur ausgespielt, wenn Mechanismus, Kontext und Messgröße ableitbar sind.

Limitationen

Evidence-Fill Queue: Limitationen werden aus Risk-of-Bias-, Sample- und Methodikfeldern ergänzt.

Verknüpfte Konzepte

Unterstützte Claims

FAQ

Worum geht es in dieser Studie?

Interventions involving nudge theory for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.: New approaches to mitigate vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine uptake are urgently needed. Nudging has shown effective results in several health areas. However, the effectiveness of interventions involving nudge theory in increasing COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials published before December 31, 2022, to determine whether interventions involving nudge theory improved COVID-19 vaccination behavior and intent. Risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as pooled measures to assess vaccination behavior. Intention to vaccinate was reported in a narrative synthesis. Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 176,125 participants were included. Interventions involving nudge theory weakly boosted the COVID-19 vaccine uptake rate (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.07, 1.36], p < .01). Subgroup analysis showed a weak positive effect of social norms (RR = 2.04, 95% CI [1.61, 2.57]), [defaults](/konzepte/default-effect/) (RR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.03, 1.69]), and salient reminders (RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.36]). Nudge interventions integrating multiple components were more efficacious in increasing vaccination rates compared to nudge alone. The effect of nudging interventions weakened over time (p < .001). Most studies (10 of 11) involving vaccination intention outcomes showed positive or partially positive results. Interventions involving nudge theory can promote COVID-19 vaccination behavior and intentions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved). Evidenzgrad A, Risk of Bias unclear.

Welche Evidenz wird genutzt?

Die Seite nutzt Claims, Studien, Use Cases und Quellen aus dem SurrealDB Knowledge Graph der Conversion-Psychologie-Wissensbasis.

Ist die Ausgabe auf Deutsch verfügbar?

Ja. Alle menschenlesbaren Inhalte und Agent-Ausgaben sind standardmäßig deutsch.