Vaccine HesitancyCOVANEWNCT05582564
The Effect of Newspaper Reporting on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: a Randomised Controlled Trial
A study testing abstract vs concrete texts in people with Vaccine Hesitancy, run by University of Bari Aldo Moro at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be observed at different rates in different countries. 1,068 people were surveyed in France and Italy to inquire about individual potential acceptance, focusing on time preferences, in a risk-return framework: having the vaccination today, in a month, and in 3 months; perceived risks of… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 64 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Vaccine Hesitancy
- What is being tested?
- abstract vs concrete texts
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,068 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 2 Jun 2021to 31 Jan 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 64 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- unvaccinated individuals
Who cannot join
- vaccinated individuals
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be observed at different rates in different countries. 1,068 people were surveyed in France and Italy to inquire about individual potential acceptance, focusing on time preferences, in a risk-return framework: having the vaccination today, in a month, and in 3 months; perceived risks of vaccination and COVID-19; and expected benefit of the vaccine. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to understand how everyday stimuli, such as fact-based news about vaccines, impact on audience acceptance of vaccination. The main experiment involved two groups of participants and two different articles about vaccine-related thrombosis taken from two Italian newspapers. One article used a more abstract description and language, and the other used a more anecdotical description and concrete language; each group read only one of these articles. Two other groups were assigned categorization tasks; one was asked to complete a concrete categorization task and the other an abstract categorization task.
Read the detailed description
The goal of this RCT is to learn how journalistic news can affect vaccine hesitancy. 2 cohorts of unvaccinated individual, one Italian, one French. 5 arms design:
- participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in an abstract language
- participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in a more concrete language
- participants performing abstract categorization task
- participants performing concrete categorization task
- control group answering questionnaire
Research questions:
- Does a more abstract vs concrete language increase the willingness to receive the vaccine? ii) Does a more abstract vs concrete mindset increase the willingness to receive the vaccine? iii) Is a gender effect detectable?
- Conditions
- Vaccine Hesitancy
- Being tested
- abstract vs concrete texts
- Keywords
- vaccine hesitancy
- Medical subject headings
- Vaccination Hesitancy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
abstract vs concrete textsOther
Also called abstract vs concrete tasks
The main experiment involved two groups of participants and two different articles about vaccine-related thrombosis taken from two Italian newspapers. One article used a more abstract descriptive style and language, while the other used a more anecdotical style and concrete language: each group read only one of these articles. Both articles are the same length and describe an episode of vaccine-related thrombosis. The abstract text uses a more formal and impersonal language, reporting more scientific considerations; the concrete text uses a more familiar and emotional style and provides a more anecdotical description of the case. Texts were also weighted according to a concreteness semantic vocabulary. French received translated versions.Two other groups were assigned categorization tasks; one was asked to complete a concrete categorization task and the other an abstract categorization task.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| concrete text | Other | Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n= 164; n=163) Receives: Other: abstract vs concrete texts |
| abstract text | Other | Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=155; n=153) Receives: Other: abstract vs concrete texts |
| abstract task | Other | Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=54; n=55) Receives: Other: abstract vs concrete texts |
| concrete task | Other | Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=55; n=56) Receives: Other: abstract vs concrete texts |
| control | Other | Italian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=103; n=110) Receives: Other: abstract vs concrete texts |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
vaccine hesitancy; number of participants accepting the vaccination
revealed preferences
Measured: same day
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Oct 2022
- Study start2 Jun 2021
- Primary completion20 Jun 2021
- Study completion31 Jan 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Vaccine HesitancyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,068 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Bari Aldo Moro
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Anna Rinaldi, University of Bari Aldo Moro
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05582564
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 00001
- Acronym
- COVANEW
- Status last verified
- Oct 2022
- First submitted
- 13 Oct 2022
- Last updated
- 17 Oct 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No personal data have been collected. Individual responses to the questionnaire will be shared without personal information of respondents on a public repository.
Publications
Liberman N, Trope Y. Traversing psychological distance. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):364-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001. Epub 2014 Apr 10.
PubMed 24726527Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):403-21. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403.
PubMed 12885109Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1. Epub 2021 Feb 5.
PubMed 33547453MacDonald NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
PubMed 25896383
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Oct 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effect of Newspaper Reporting on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: a Randomised Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05582564
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- COVANEW / 00001
- Conditions
- Vaccine Hesitancy
- Keywords
- vaccine hesitancy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,068 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Bari Aldo MoroUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 2 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jan 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Oct 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be observed at different rates in different countries. 1,068 people were surveyed in France and Italy to inquire about individual potential acceptance, focusing on time preferences, in a risk-return framework: having the vaccination today, in a month, and in 3 months; perceived risks of vaccination and COVID-19; and expected benefit of the vaccine. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to understand how everyday stimuli, such as fact-based news about vaccines, impact on audience acceptance of vaccination. The main experiment involved two groups of participants and two different articles about vaccine-related thrombosis taken from two Italian newspapers. One article used a more abstract description and language, and the other used a more anecdotical description and concrete language; each group read only one of these articles. Two other groups were assigned categorization tasks; one was asked to complete a concrete categorization task and the other an abstract categorization task.
Detailed description
The goal of this RCT is to learn how journalistic news can affect vaccine hesitancy. 2 cohorts of unvaccinated individual, one Italian, one French. 5 arms design:
- participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in an abstract language
- participants reading a fact-based newspaper article written in a more concrete language
- participants performing abstract categorization task
- participants performing concrete categorization task
- control group answering questionnaire
Research questions:
- Does a more abstract vs concrete language increase the willingness to receive the vaccine? ii) Does a more abstract vs concrete mindset increase the willingness to receive the vaccine? iii) Is a gender effect detectable?
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| concrete text | Other | Other: abstract vs concrete textsItalian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n= 164; n=163) |
| abstract text | Other | Other: abstract vs concrete textsItalian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=155; n=153) |
| abstract task | Other | Other: abstract vs concrete textsItalian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=54; n=55) |
| concrete task | Other | Other: abstract vs concrete textsItalian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=55; n=56) |
| control | Other | Other: abstract vs concrete textsItalian and French unvaccinated cohorts (n=103; n=110) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 64 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- unvaccinated individuals
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- vaccinated individuals
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| abstract vs concrete textsAlso: abstract vs concrete tasksThe main experiment involved two groups of participants and two different articles about vaccine-related thrombosis taken from two Italian newspapers. One article used a more abstract descriptive style and language, while the other used a more anecdotical style and concrete language: each group read only one of these articles. Both articles are the same length and describe an episode of vaccine-related thrombosis. The abstract text uses a more formal and impersonal language, reporting more scientific considerations; the concrete text uses a more familiar and emotional style and provides a more anecdotical description of the case. Texts were also weighted according to a concreteness semantic vocabulary. French received translated versions.Two other groups were assigned categorization tasks; one was asked to complete a concrete categorization task and the other an abstract categorization task. | Other | abstract task, abstract text, concrete task, concrete text, control |
Primary outcome
vaccine hesitancy; number of participants accepting the vaccination
Time frame: same day
revealed preferences
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Oct 2022.
- Background: PubMed 24726527Liberman N, Trope Y. Traversing psychological distance. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):364-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001. Epub 2014 Apr 10.
- Background: PubMed 12885109Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):403-21. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403.
- Background: PubMed 33547453Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1. Epub 2021 Feb 5.
- Background: PubMed 25896383MacDonald NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No personal data have been collected. Individual responses to the questionnaire will be shared without personal information of respondents on a public repository.
Related trials for Vaccine Hesitancy
Active, not recruiting
Conversational AI for Adult Flu Vaccination Decisions
Influenza, Human, Vaccine Hesitancy
Recruiting
Intrahospital Influenza Vaccination in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk (VACC-UP)
Acute Coronary Syndrome, Heart Failure
Not yet recruiting
Development and Evaluation of a Digital Educational Intervention to Improve Vaccine Confidence and Communication Among Registered Nurses: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (VaxNurse-RCT).
Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Acceptance
Active, not recruiting
Communication Strategies to Increase HPV Vaccinations
Papilloma Viral Infection, Vaccine Hesitancy
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of a Vaccine Chatbot on HPV Vaccine Confidence and Hesitancy
HPV Vaccine
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing abstract vs concrete texts in people with Vaccine Hesitancy, run by University of Bari Aldo Moro at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Oct 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
vaccine hesitancy; number of participants accepting the vaccination (time frame: same day). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05582564, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Oct 2022.