Cited by 1,300Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and Health

Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial

Nyhan, Brendan, Reifler, Jason, Richey, Sean, Freed, Gary L.·2014·Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the effectiveness of messages designed to reduce vaccine misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR). METHODS: A Web-based nationally representative 2-wave survey experiment was conducted with 1759 parents age 18 years and older residing in the United States who have children in their household age 17 years or younger (conducted June–July 2011). Parents were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 interventions: (1) information explaining the lack of evidence that MMR causes autism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (2) textual information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement; (3) images of children who have diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine; (4) a dramatic narrative about an infant who almost died of measles from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet; or to a control group. RESULTS: None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child. Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Current public health communications about vaccines may not be effective. For some parents, they may actually increase misperceptions or reduce vaccination intention. Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive. More study of pro-vaccine messaging is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2013-2365

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The second questionnaire (post-manipulation survey) has been used in previous studies.

    “The second questionnaire was a post-manipulation survey that assessed whether and how participants’ beliefs and attitudes toward vaccines changed compared to the baseline measure. The three-item post-manipulation survey has also been used in previous studies [4].”
  • The first questionnaire assessing baseline beliefs and attitudes towards vaccines has been used in previous studies.

    “The first questionnaire was a preliminary survey aimed at assessing participants’ baseline beliefs and attitudes towards vaccines, which has been used in previous studies [42, 4].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Nyhan, Brendan
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
133
Issue
4
Pages
e835-e842
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2159667899
Cited by
1,300
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 130 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 166 · 2020: 146 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 135 · 2017: 114 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 1
FWCI
130.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
vaccine promotion, MMR vaccine, vaccine hesitancy, parental vaccination intention, public health communication, narrative persuasion, visual persuasion
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Female, Health Education, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Measles, Parents, Vaccination, Single-Blind Method, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

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