This study is a PhD project conducted by Ms. Hina Hakim, supervised by Dr. Holly O. Witteman, PhD, and co-supervised Dr. Daniel Reinharz, professors and researchers at the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of visualization conveying the concept of community immunity or herd immunity on risk perception (towards individual, family, community and vulnerable people in communities) (primary outcome) and on emotions, attitudes, knowledge, and behavioural intentions (secondary outcomes).
Visualization is a powerful communication mechanism that uses pre-attentive processing to communicate large amounts of information rapidly in understandable and compelling ways (Healey and Enns 2012). A systematic review demonstrates that there are some interventions available for conveying the concept of community immunity, and very few evaluate interventions for their effects on vaccine intentions and uptake as well as their precursors, such as knowledge, attitudes, knowledge and none on emotions (Hakim et al. 2018). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of visualization conveying the concept of community immunity on risk perception (to individual, family, community and vulnerable people in communities) (primary outcome) and on emotions, attitudes, knowledge, and behavioural intentions (secondary outcomes).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
5,516
In this visualization participants can build their own avatar representing themselves and 8 other avatars representing people around them, like their family or coworkers. Our visualization then uses these avatars in a brief narrated video explaining how herd immunity works.
A screen capture of an interactive visualization: https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/feb/05/-sp-watch-how-measles-outbreak-spreads-when-kids-get-vaccinated
A gif showing measles spreading through populations with differing levels of vaccine coverage: https://imgur.com/gallery/8M7q8#J7LANQ4
Université Laval
Québec, Canada
Risk perception
6 items assessing risk perception (item 1 = risk perception as comprehension, scale 0-100, higher numbers better; items 2-5 = risk perception as feelings, scale 1-7, higher numbers better; complete list of items and response wording available in uploaded questionnaire herdimm\_phase3\_questionnaire\_2021-03-01.pdf)
Time frame: immediately after intervention or control
Emotions
5 items (e.g., "I am worried about getting \[disease\]", "I would feel guilty if a vulnerable person (a baby, a young child, an older person, a cancer patient) got \[disease\] from me") with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"; higher numbers may be better; complete list of items and response wording available in uploaded questionnaire herdimm\_phase3\_questionnaire\_2021-03-01.pdf
Time frame: immediately after intervention or control
Knowledge
15 items, with 2 multiple choice questions and 13 true/false questions, for a total possible score ranging from 0 to 18; higher numbers better; complete list of items available in uploaded questionnaire herdimm\_phase3\_questionnaire\_2021-03-01.pdf
Time frame: immediately after intervention or control
Trust in information
Single item (Control: "During your life, you may have seen information about vaccines. Thinking about the information you have seen, how trustworthy was it?" Treatment: "Earlier, you saw a {{video, website}} about herd immunity. Thinking about the {{video, website}} you saw earlier, how trustworthy was the information in it?") with Likert-type response options 1 = not at all trustworthy, 2 = moderately untrustworthy, 3 = slightly untrustworthy, 4 = neutral, 5 = slightly trustworthy, 6 = moderately trustworthy, 7 = strongly trustworthy
Time frame: immediately after intervention or control
Vaccination intentions
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
A video showing how herd immunity works in general: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/two-sydney-babies-too-young-to-be-vaccinated-infected-with-measles
A video showing how herd immunity works in the context of influenza: https://www.canada.ca/fr/sante-publique/services/video/la-grippe-n-en-passez-pas-les-maux.html
A web-based application showing how herd immunity works in general: http://rocs.hu-berlin.de/D3/herd/
Questions conditioned on whether the participant indicates they believe they are already immune to the disease in question, e.g., "Imagine you were not already immune to {{measles/pertussis/influenza/a vaccine preventable disease}}. If you were eligible to receive a free vaccine against {{measles/pertussis/influenza/a vaccine-preventable disease}}, how likely would you be to get vaccinated?" Response scale on a slider: 0 = extremely unlikely, I would definitely NOT be vaccinated; 100 = extremely likely, I would definitely BE vaccinated; higher numbers better.
Time frame: immediately after intervention or control
5C scale
"5C scale: 15-item validated scale measuring the psychological antecedents of vaccination (Betsch et al., 2018)"
Time frame: immediately after intervention or control