Tailoring interventions to suit self-reported format preference does not decrease vaccine hesitancy.

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Behavioral Science
• Health Communication

Background:

• Vaccine hesitancy remains a significant public health challenge, impacting vaccination rates for diseases like COVID-19 and influenza.
• Individually tailored interventions are hypothesized to be more effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether tailoring vaccine hesitancy interventions (statistical vs. anecdotal information) to individual format preferences influences vaccine attitudes and intentions.
• To assess the impact of format preference on the perceived helpfulness and relevance of interventions.

Main Methods:

• Two studies were conducted involving vaccine-hesitant individuals.
• Participants' preference for statistical or anecdotal information was measured.
• Interventions for COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy were experimentally presented in either a statistical or anecdotal format.

Main Results:

• Interventions did not significantly alter vaccine attitudes or vaccination intentions, irrespective of format preference alignment.
• A preference for anecdotal information correlated with increased frustration and decreased perceived relevance and helpfulness across both intervention formats.
• Statistical interventions elicited less negative reactions compared to anecdotal interventions, even among those preferring anecdotal information.

Conclusions:

• Tailoring vaccine hesitancy interventions based on preferred information format may not be an effective strategy for increasing vaccine uptake.
• Employing statistics-based interventions, even for individuals with anti-vaccination attitudes, appears to be a less detrimental approach than relying solely on anecdotal evidence.