What Works to Increase Vaccination Uptake
Abstract
Behavioral science offers several ideas about what it takes to get people to vaccinate. Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evidence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model. To make the model more accessible to practitioners, the current paper summarizes the main insights from the earlier work. First, observational studies show clearly that thoughts and feelings are correlated with vaccine uptake. Such constructs include perceived risk of harm from infectious disease and confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy. However, interventions have not generally shown that changing thoughts and feelings increases vaccine uptake. Second, social processes are promising in observational studies. Such constructs include social norms, altruism, and sharing through social media. More research is needed in this promising area before it will be possible to conclude whether social processes are effective intervention targets. Third, interventions that directly change behavior-without trying to change what people think or feel or their social experience-are reliably effective ways to increase vaccine uptake. Such interventions include reminders, defaults, and vaccine requirements. Finally, the most potent intervention for increasing vaccine uptake is a health care provider recommendation, but it is still unclear whether such recommendations are effective because they increase confidence, set a social norm, or reflect a direct behavi…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Guide questions were developed using the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM) as a theoretical framework.
“Guide questions were developed using the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM) as a theoretical framework, which postulates that what people think and feel, social processes, and direct behavioral changes are the three primary factors driving vaccination [35, 36].”
From Acceptability of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention amongst emerging adult women in rural Mysore, India: a mixed-methods study (2024) · cites this paper as [36]
Cites
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 · Cited by 3,732 · see citing works
Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review
Sheeran, P. (2002) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792772143000003 · Cited by 3,688 · see citing works
The Architecture of Provider-Parent Vaccine Discussions at Health Supervision Visits
Opel, D. J., Heritage, J., Taylor, J. A., Mangione-Smith, R., Salas, H. S., DeVere, V., Zhou, C., & Robinson, J. D. (2013) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2037 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Coursey, K., Muralidhar, K., Srinivas, V., Jaykrishna, P., Begum, F., Ningaiah, N., Lee, S.-J., & Madhivanan, P. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19485-8 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“Guide questions were developed using the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM) as a theoretical framework, which postulates that what people think and feel, social processes, and direct behavioral changes are the three primary factors driving vaccination [35, 36].”
BackgroundMethod
- Authors
- Brewer, N. T.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brewer, Noel T.
- ORCID
- Brewer, Noel T.
- Venue
- Academic Pediatrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- S9-S16
- ISSN
- 1876-2859 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3157726243
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 17.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Aspen Institute
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- vaccine uptake, behavioral interventions, social norms, altruism, social media sharing, reminders, default, vaccination requirements, provider recommendation, behaviour change techniques, low vaccination coverage
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Therapy, Emotions, Health Personnel, Humans, Vaccination, Vaccines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review