Using behavioral insights to increase vaccination policy effectiveness
Abstract
Even though there are policies in place, and safe and effective vaccines available, almost every country struggles with vaccine hesitancy, that is, a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination. Consequently, it is important to understand the determinants of individual vaccination decisions to establish effective strategies to support the success of country-specific public health policies. Vaccine refusal can result from complacency, inconvenience, a lack of confidence, and a rational calculation of pros and cons. Interventions should, therefore, be carefully targeted to focus on the reason for non-vaccination. We suggest that there are several interventions that may be effective for complacent, convenient, and calculating individuals whereas interventions that might be effective for those who lack confidence are scarce. Thus, efforts should be concentrated on motivating the complacent, removing barriers for those for whom vaccination is inconvenient, and adding incentives and additional utility for the calculating. These strategies might be more promising, economic, and effective than convincing those who lack confidence in vaccination.
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?
There is little systematic research on correcting vaccine misinformation and no strong evidence recommending any specific intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.
“Notwithstanding the centrality of the vaccine issue, there is little systematic research on correcting vaccine misinformation and we found no strong evidence recommending any specific intervention to address vaccines hesitancy [3, 40, 41].”
From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [41]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 110 · Cited by 378
- Authors
- Betsch, C., Böhm, R., & Chapman, G. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Erfurt (DE)
- RWTH Aachen University, Germany
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Betsch, Cornelia
- Venue
- Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-73
- ISSN
- 2372-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 2372-7330
- OpenAlex
- W2181118282
- Semantic Scholar
- 0e1cd7c0cec85f784c0fcdff43e7c8f5f263bebc
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 18.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- vaccine hesitancy, vaccination policy, behavioral interventions, vaccine refusal, complacency, convenience, vaccine confidence, incentives, vaccine decision-making, public health policy effectiveness
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