Risk Communication, Values Clarification, and Vaccination Decisions. Issue 10 (20th May 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Witteman, Holly O.; Chipenda Dansokho, Selma; Exe, Nicole; Dupuis, Audrey; Provencher, Thierry; Zikmund‐Fisher, Brian J.
• Is Part Of: Risk analysis. Volume 35:Issue 10(2015)
• Page Start: 1801
• Page End: 1819
• Publication Date: 2015-05-20
• Subjects: Children -- immunization -- influenza -- interface design -- risk communication methods -- vaccination -- values clarification exercise -- values clarification methods -- values congruence; Technology -- Risk assessment -- Periodicals; 658.403
• DOI: 10.1111/risa.12418
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0272-4332

Abstract

Abstract : Many health‐related decisions require choosing between two options, each with risks and benefits. When presented with such tradeoffs, people often make choices that fail to align with scientific evidence or with their own values. This study tested whether risk communication and values clarification methods could help parents and guardians make evidence‐based, values‐congruent decisions about children's influenza vaccinations. In 2013–2014 we conducted an online 2×2 factorial experiment in which a diverse sample of U.S. parents and guardians ( n = 407) were randomly assigned to view either standard information about influenza vaccines or risk communication using absolute and incremental risk formats. Participants were then either presented or not presented with an interactive values clarification interface with constrained sliders and dynamic visual feedback. Participants randomized to the risk communication condition combined with the values clarification interface were more likely to indicate intentions to vaccinate (β = 2.10, t (399) = 2.63, p < 0.01). The effect was particularly notable among participants who had previously demonstrated less interest in having their children vaccinated against influenza (β = –2.14, t (399) = –2.06, p < 0.05). When assessing vaccination status reported by participants who agreed to participate in a follow‐up study six months later ( n = 116), vaccination intentions significantly predicted vaccination status (OR = 1.66, 95%CI (1.13, 2.44), p < 0.05) and rates of informed choice (OR = 1.51, 95%CI (1.07, 2.13), p < 0.012), although there were no direct effects of experimental factors on vaccination rates. Qualitative analysis suggested that logistical barriers impeded immunization rates. Risk communication and values clarification methods may contribute to increased vaccination intentions, which may, in turn, predict vaccination status if logistical barriers are also addressed.