Cited by 378Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsBehavioral Health and Interventions

Using behavioral insights to increase vaccination policy effectiveness

Betsch, Cornelia, Böhm, Robert, Chapman, Gretchen B.·2015·Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

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

Crossref · 10.1177/2372732215600716

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

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
Published
2015-10
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
61-73
ISSN
  • 2372-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-7330
OpenAlex
W2181118282
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