Nudging influenza vaccination among health care workers

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers and the effect of nudging interventions: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has a critical role because of their high-risk exposure and being a role model. Therefore, we aimed to investigate vaccine hesitancy and the role of mandatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and education for vaccine uptake.

METHODS

We conducted an explanatory sequential designed observational mixed-methods study, including quantitative and qualitative sections consecutively in two different pandemic hospitals between 15 September 2021 and 1 April 2022. The characteristics of vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs were compared. The vaccine hesitancy scales were applied, and the effect of nudging, such as mandatory PCR and education, were evaluated. In-depth interviews were performed to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs according to Health Belief Model.

RESULTS

In total, 3940 HCWs were included. Vaccine hesitancy was more common among males than females, the ancillary workers than other health professions, and nonmedical departments than other departments. After the mandatory weekly PCR request nudge, 83.33 % (130/156) vaccine-hesitant HCWs were vaccinated, and 8.3 % (13/156) after the small group seminars and mandatory PCR every two days. The rate of COVID-19 vaccination was raised from 95.5 % to 99.67  % (3927/3940). At the end of in-depth interviews (n = 13), the vaccine hesitancy determinants were distrust, fear of uncertainty, immune confidence and spirituality, the media effect, social pressure, and obstinacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The nudging interventions such as mandatory PCR testing and small group seminars helped raise the rate of COVID-19 vaccination; the most effective one is mandatory PCR.

Situated Affectivity and Mind Shaping: Lessons from Social Psychology*

Proponents of situated affectivity hold that “tools for feeling” are just as characteristic of the human condition as are “tools for thinking” or tools for carpentry. An agent’s affective life, they argue, is dependent upon both physical characteristics of the agent and the agent’s reciprocal relationship to an appropriately structured natural, technological, or social environment. One important achievement has been the distinction between two fundamentally different ways in which affectivity might be intertwined with the environment: the “user-resource-model” and the “mind-invasion-model.” The twofold purpose of this paper is to complement the debate about situated affectivity in general and about “mind invasion” in particular by, firstly, connecting it to situationist research in social psychology and, secondly, broadening the perspective to not only accommodate decidedly detrimental “invasions” but also potentially beneficial forms of “mind shaping” that include the manipulation of an agent’s experiential life and behaviour through the moulding of both the agent’s environment and the agent’s body.

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested three behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care (LTC) prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.

Results

The trial included 421 physicians caring for more than 28,000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio (OR) 1.51 (95%CI 1.10-2.07, p=0.011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.74 (95%CI 1.24-2.45, p=0.0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.06-2.47, p=0.026; aOR 2.16, 95%CI 1.33-3.50, p=0.0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR 1.28, 95%CI 1.14-1.43, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback.