Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake?:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose There is good evidence that for many behaviours, increasing risk appraisal can lead to a change in behaviour, heightened when efficacy appraisals are also increased. The present systematic review addressed whether interventions presenting a risk message increase risk appraisal and an increase in vaccination intentions and uptake. Method A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of interventions presenting a risk message and measuring risk appraisal and intentions and uptake post-intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses investigated the size of the effect that interventions had on vaccination risk appraisal and on vaccination behaviour or intention to vaccinate, and the size of the relationship between vaccination risk appraisal and vaccination intentions and uptake. Results Eighteen studies were included and 16 meta-analysed. Interventions overall had small significant effects on risk appraisal (d = 0.161, p = .047) and perceptions of susceptibility (d = 0.195, p = .025), but no effect on perceptions of severity (d = −0.036, p = .828). Interventions showed no effect on intention to vaccinate (d = 0.138, p = .195) and no effect on vaccination behaviour (d = 0.043, p = .826). Interventions typically did not include many behaviour change techniques (BCTs), with the most common BCT unique to intervention conditions being ‘Information about Health Consequences’. Few of the included studies attempted to, or successfully increased, efficacy appraisals. Conclusions Overall, there is a lack of good-quality primary studies, and existing interventions are suboptimal. The inclusion of additional BCTs, including those to target efficacy appraisals, could increase intervention effectiveness. The protocol (CRD42015029365) is available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/

Determinants of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women in Valencia, Spain

Background: In most countries the coverage of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women is low. We investigated the acceptance, reasons for rejection and professional involvement related to vaccine information in pregnant women in Valencia, Spain. Methods: Observational retrospective study in 200 pregnant women, 100 vaccinated and 100 unvaccinated, were interviewed during the 2014/2015 vaccination campaign. Electronic medical records, immunization registry and telephone interviews were used to determine reasons for vaccination and immunization rejection. Results: 40.5% of pregnant women in the health department were vaccinated. The midwife was identified as source of information for 89% of women. The vaccine was rejected due to low perceptions of risk of influenza infection (23%), lack of information (19%), considering the vaccine as superfluous (16%), close proximity of delivery date (13%) and fear of side effects (12%). Conclusion: Pregnant women in Spain declined to be vaccinated due to under-estimation of the risk of contracting or being harmed by influenza, and lack of information. Interventions aiming to optimize vaccination coverage should include information addressing the safety and effectiveness of the current vaccine together with improved professional training and motivation

The use of augmented reality to raise awareness of the differences between osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis

Arthritis is one of the most common disease states worldwide but is still publicly misunderstood and lacks engaging public awareness materials. Within the UK, the most prevalent types of arthritis are osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The two are commonly mistaken as the same disease but, in fact, have very different pathogenesis, symptoms and treatments. This chapter describes a study which aimed to assess whether an augmented reality (AR) application could be used to raise awareness about the difference between OA and RA.An application was created for Android tablets that included labelled 3D models, animations and AR scenes triggered from a poster. In total 11 adult participants tested the application taking part in a pretest and posttest which aim to measure the usability of the application and the acquisition of knowledge on OA and RA. A T-test was performed to assess the effectiveness of the application from the pretest and posttest questionnaire outcomes. Overall results were encouraging reporting a very significant acquisition of knowledge and a highly satisfactory user experience

The Use of Augmented Reality to Raise Awareness of the Differences Between Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis

Arthritis is one of the most common disease states worldwide but is still publicly misunderstood and lacks engaging public awareness materials. Within the UK, the most prevalent types of arthritis are osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The two are commonly mistaken as the same disease but, in fact, have very different pathogenesis, symptoms and treatments. This chapter describes a study which aimed to assess whether an augmented reality (AR) application could be used to raise awareness about the difference between OA and RA. An application was created for Android tablets that included labelled 3D models, animations and AR scenes triggered from a poster. In total 11 adult participants tested the application taking part in a pretest and posttest which aim to measure the usability of the application and the acquisition of knowledge on OA and RA. A T-test was performed to assess the effectiveness of the application from the pretest and posttest questionnaire outcomes. Overall results were encouraging reporting a very significant acquisition of knowledge and a highly satisfactory user experience