Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 37, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 860-870

  Bruine De Bruin, Wändi ^a,b   Wallin, Annika ^c   Parker, Andrew M ^d   Strough, Jonell ^e   Hanmer, Janel ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^e WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

decision making; narrative information; numeracy; risk communication; vaccine

Indexed keywords

INFLUENZA VACCINE;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED STATES; VACCINATION; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFLUENZA VACCINES; INTERNET; MALE; NARRATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES; VACCINATION;

EID: 85030657786     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17704858     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. CDC. Vaccination: Who should do it, who should not, and who should take precautions. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm
2. Belshe RB, Mendelman PM, Treanor J, et al. The efficacy of live attenuated, cold-adapted, trivalent, intranasal influenzavirus vaccine in children. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 1405-12.
3. Ferdinands JM, Olsho LEW, Agan AA, et al. Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine Against Life-threatening RT-PCR-confirmed Influenza Illness in US Children, 2010-2012. J Infect Dis. 2014; 210: 674-83.
4. Talbot HK, Zhu Y, Chen Q, Williams JV, Thompson MG, Griffin MR,. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations in adults, 2011-2012 influenza season. Clin Infect Dis. 2013; 56: 1775-7.
5. CDC. What are the benefits of flu vaccination? 2016. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/general/flu-vaccine-benefits.pdf
6. Entwistle VA, France EF, Wyke S, et al. How information about other people's personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: A qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 85: e291-8.
7. Maurer J, Uscher-Pines L, Harris KM,. Perceived seriousness of seasonal and A(H1N1) influenzas, attitudes toward vaccination, and vaccine uptake among US adults: Does the source of information matter? Prev Med. 2010; 51: 185-7.
8. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, et al. Informed decision making: An annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999; 3: 1-156.
9. O'Connor AM, Légaré F, Stacey D,. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. BMJ. 2003; 327: 736-40.
10. Stacy D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lydiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu JHC,. Decision aids for people facing health treatment of screening decisions (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; CD001431: 1-335.
11. Downs JS, Bruine de, Bruin W, Fischhoff B,. Parents' vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine. 2008; 26: 1595-1607.
12. Kanouse DE, Schlesinger M, Shaller D, Martino SC, Rybowski L,. How patient comments affect consumers' use of physician performance measures. Med Care. 2016; 54: 24-31.
13. Winterbottom A, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney A,. Does narrative information bias individuals' decision making? Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67: 2079-88.
14. Shaffer VA, Zikmund-Fisher B,. All stories are not alike: Purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33: 4-13.
15. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA,. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005; 25: 398-405.
16. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J,. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 60-8.
17. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S,. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988; 8: 177-87.
18. Kause A, Moussaïd M, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M,. When peers overrule probabilities: The interplay between narratives, uncertainty, and risk perception in online environments. Society for Risk Analysis. The Society for Risk Analysis Conference, Istanbul, June 2014. Available from: URL: http://www.sraeurope.org/filehandler.ashx?file=13389.
19. Betsch C, Ulshöfer C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T,. The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31: 742-53.
20. Winterbottom AE, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney AF,. Patient stories about their dialysis experiences bias others' choices regardless of doctor's advice: An experimental study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011; 27: 325-31.
21. Persson J, Wahlberg L,. Vår erfarenhet av beprövad erfarenhet: några begreppsprofiler och ett verktyg för precisering. Läkartidningen. 2015; 49: 2230-2.
22. Hoeken H, Hustinx L,. When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Hum Commun Res. 2003; 35: 491-510.
23. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK,. General performance on a numeracy scale among higher educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 37-44.
24. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG,. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 966-72.
25. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R,. Statistical numeracy for health. Arch Int Med. 2010; 170: 462-8.
26. Weller J, Dieckmann NF, Tusler M, Mertz CK, Burns WJ, Peters E,. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. J Behav Decis Making. 2013; 26: 198-212.
27. Bruine de, Bruin W, Carman KG,. Measuring risk perception: What does the excessive use of 50% mean? Med Decis Making. 2012; 2: 232-6.
28. Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dickmann N,. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs. 2007; 26: 741-8.
29. Del Missier F, Mantyla T, Bruine de Bruin W,. Decision making competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abilities. J Behav Decis Making. 2012; 25: 331-51.
30. Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S,. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17: 407-13.
31. Estrada CA, Martin-Hrynievicz M, Peek BT, Collins C, Byrd JC,. Literacy and numeracy skills an anticoagulation control. Am J Med Sci. 2004; 328: 88-93.
32. Bruine de, Bruin W, McNair S, Taylor AL, Summers B, Strough J,. 'Thinking about numbers is not my idea of fun': Need for cognition mediates age differences in numeracy performance. Med Decis Making. 2015; 35: 22-6.
33. Liberali JM, Reyna VF, Furlan S, Stein LM, Pardo ST,. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. J Behav Decis Making. 2012; 25: 361-81.
34. Peters E,. Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012; 21: 31-5.
35. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF,. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009; 135: 943-73.
36. Dieckmann NF, Slovic P, Peters EM,. The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis. 2009; 29: 1473-88.
37. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Vastfjall D, Mertz C, Slovic P, Hibbard JH,. Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009; 15: 213-27.
38. Understanding America Study Team. Understanding America Study. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Available from https://uasdata.usc.edu/.
39. Russell K, Blanton L, Kniss K, et al. Update: Influenza activity-United States, October 4, 2015-February 6, 2016. Morbid Mortal Week Rep. 2016; 65: 146-53.
40. Flesch R,. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948; 32: 221-33.
41. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr., Rogers RL, Chissom BS,. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel, Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN; 1975.
42. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL,. Readability standards for informed consent forms as compared to actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 721-6.
43. Walsh TM, Volsko TA,. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008; 53: 1310-5.
44. Fischhoff B., Bruine de Bruin W,. Fifty-fifty = 50%? J Behav Decis Making. 1999; 12: 149-63.
45. Eisinga R, te Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B,. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health. 2013; 58: 637-42.
46. Chapman GB, Coups EJ,. Predictors of influenza vaccine acceptance among healthy adults. Prev Med. 1999; 29: 249-62.
47. Gidengil CA, Parker AM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ,. Trends in risk perceptions and vaccination intentions: a longitudinal study of the first year of the H1N1 pandemic. Am J Public Health. 2012; 102: 672-79.
48. Maurer J, Harris KM, Parker AM,. Does receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine predict intention to receive novel H1N1 vaccine: Evidence from a nationally representative survey of US adults. Vaccine. 2009; 27: 5732-4.
49. Shahrabani S, Benzion U,. How experience shapes health beliefs: The case of influenza vaccination. Health Educ Behav. 2012; 39: 612-9.
50. Hayes AF,. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. 2013.
51. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF,. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008; 40: 879-91.
52. Harris KM, Maurer J, Lurie N,. Do people who intend to get a flu shot actually get one? J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24: 1311-3.
53. Schlesinger M, Grob R, Shaller D, et al. Taking patients' narratives about clinicians from anecdote to science. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 675-9.
54. Anderson NH,. Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1965; 2: 1-9.
55. Kahneman D, Tversky A,. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol. 1984; 39: 341-50.
56. Betsch C, Renkewitz F, Haase N,. Effect of narrative reports about vaccine adverse events and bias-awareness disclaimers on vaccine decisions: A simulation of an online network. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33: 14-25.
57. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G,. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009; 29: 210-6.
58. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A,. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge on treatment choices. Patient Educ Counsel. 2008; 73: 448-55.