Message Effectiveness of Fear Appeals in Vaccination Communication Campaigns: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review of 54 cross-disciplinary peer-reviewed causal empirical studies helps public health officials, researchers, and healthcare professionals better comprehend the effects of fear appeals in vaccine promotional campaigns on message processing, persuasion, vaccination attitudes, and vaccination intentions. This review documents inconsistent findings across studies, which it attempts to clarify by considering differences in research designs, sample populations, and outcomes measured. In general, we find that fear appeals increase risk perceptions, message involvement, and vaccination attitudes. However, fear appeals have less influence on vaccination intentions, especially among female and general adult populations or populations from the U.S. and other Western cultures. On the other hand, the effect of fear appeals on vaccination intentions is stronger among student populations and those from China (People's Republic of China and Hong Kong) and other non-Western cultures. Also, fear appeals are less persuasive when promoting COVID-19 vaccines and boosters than they are for other vaccines (e.g., HPV, influenza, MMR). Future research should compare fear appeal effectiveness in messages across vaccines or when combined with other executional elements, such as the endorser or type of evidence provided. Finally, future studies should explore other methodological approaches and measure underexplored message outcomes, such as vaccine uptake behavior, in more naturalistic settings.

Communication Strategies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Intention: How Effective are Source, Appeal, Framing, and Evidence Type Approaches?

This systematic review analyzed the effectiveness of key persuasive strategies - source, appeal, framing, and evidence (SAFE) - on COVID-19 vaccination intention. Quantitative studies were searched in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed following the PRISMA guidelines. From the 61 studies that met inclusion criteria, source and framing are the most commonly applied SAFE strategies. However, source characteristics are a more consistent influence on vaccine intentions than message framing strategies, with expert sources and general practitioners emerging as the key sources contributing to greater vaccine intentions. In addition, a range of mediators and moderators influence the process through which SAFE message strategies impact vaccine intentions. Framing effects, in particular, are moderated by political identity, source characteristics, and vaccine perceptions. Tests of mediating processes highlight how health behavior judgments (e.g. perceived vaccine benefits, risks, trust in vaccination, perceived severity) and message response/perceptions (e.g. counterarguing, perceived similarity/empathy) operate as key intervening factors between SAFE message strategies and vaccine intentions. Overall, when practitioners apply various structural approaches (narrative elements, fear appeals, framing cues) to vaccine promotion campaigns, they should be cognizant of who is providing that appeal. Targeted populations may benefit most from different structural elements if they are integrated with sources that resonate with the audience.

Fair Balance of Prescription Drug Information on Legitimate and Illegitimate Online Pharmacy Websites.

Patients require important information when prescribed medications. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that promotional information includes a fair balance of risks and benefits. This study evaluates how well legitimate online pharmacies (LOPs) and illegitimate online pharmacies (IOPs) comply with the spirit of the FDA's fair balance guidelines by examining the extent and equivalence of risk and benefit information on their websites. This study analyzed the content of 307 online pharmacy websites. Most (90.3%) communicated drug benefits, while 84.7% provided risks. Both risk and benefit information was moderately extensive. Presentation of risks and benefits differed between online pharmacy types. Compared to LOPs, IOPs were more likely to present risk information but also exaggerate benefits. Four in ten online pharmacies presented a fair balance of risks and benefits. However, LOPs (47.4%) were more likely to present a fair balance than IOPs (36.5%). Interestingly, IOPs were more likely to disclose instructions for use and overdose information than LOPs. These findings underscore the need for regulatory guidelines to encourage online pharmacies to present a fair balance of benefit and risk information. Also, pharmacists should develop online approaches to better fulfill their professional responsibility as drug information providers while maintaining their integrity and objectivity.

What influences consumers' online medication purchase intentions and behavior? A scoping review.

Objective: Consumers increasingly buy pharmaceuticals online. No scoping review has been carried out to summarize and synthesize the studies that have identified drivers of consumers' purchase intention and behavior from online pharmacies. Thus, we conducted a scoping review to explore the extent to which prior research has studied consumer purchase intentions and behavior related to online pharmacies, the drivers previously identified to explain consumers' online pharmacy purchase intentions and behavior, and how these antecedents differ between OTC and prescription medications. Then, we identified gaps in the published literature to form a comprehensive theory-based agenda for future research. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to retrieve relevant studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The search strategy identified forty-eight eligible studies. Results: We identified twelve types of factors influencing purchase intentions and behaviors from online pharmacies: demographics, convenience, availability, price, evaluations of the purchase environment, information sources, internet usage, prior experience, perceived risk, health insurance, privacy, and product. Our analysis also revealed differences between OTC and prescription medications in drivers of purchase intentions and behaviors. Conclusion: While demographic factors tended to be the most often measured influences on intentions and behavior, their role was generally inconsistent, with many contradictory results. However, other factors (e.g., convenience, availability, lower prices, and favorable evaluations toward the purchase environment) more consistently enhanced online medication purchase intentions and behavior. An extensive agenda for future research is advanced.

The determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention: a meta-review.

Background: A large number of systematic reviews have been published that synthesized various determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention (CVI). However, they reported inconsistent evidence. Therefore, we conducted a meta-review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to provide a comprehensive synthesis of factors influencing CVI. Methods: This meta-review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for systematic reviews published from 2020 to 2022 that examined the determinants of CVI. AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal tool was used to ensure the quality of included reviews, and ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Results: Globally, the average rate of COVID-19 vaccination intention was 56.97%. We identified 21 main determinants of CVI: socio-demographic, geographical location, social, political, government role, study timeline, attitude, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control, norms, trust, conspiracy theory/propaganda/misinformation, knowledge, information and communication, vaccination recommendation, vaccination history, history of COVID-19 infection, and health status and well-being. Conclusions: These results suggest that COVID-19 vaccination intention is a complex process and is affected by numerous multidimensional factors. Therefore, integrated communication strategies and multifaceted interventions may be effective for improving vaccination intention against COVID-19.

Illicit Online Pharmacies: A Scoping Review.

This scoping review presents the extent and nature of the body of literature on illicit online pharmacies (IOPs) and identifies research gaps. Using the five-step framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Direct and PsycInfo to retrieve relevant studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The search strategy identified forty-three articles that met the inclusion criteria. Ten themes were identified and categorized into five clusters: patient risk, healthcare providers, marketing and supply chain, public health and society, and policy and regulation. Research into these clusters has evolved over time and has focused increasingly on issues related to specific drugs rather than the overall phenomenon. Data collection has been dominated by convenience sampling, online searches, content analysis and surveys. Data analysis remains primarily descriptive. Gaps within the extant literature suggest an agenda for future research into regulation and enforcement; public health awareness and education; healthcare services; risks to patients and public health; patient-, price- and product-related issues; website design; social media promotion; and supply chains and logistics. We conclude that IOPs are vastly understudied and suggest an urgent need for further empirical and conclusive research.

How Well the Constructs of Health Belief Model Predict Vaccination Intention: A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Primary Series and Booster Vaccines.

This systematic review synthesizes the findings of quantitative studies examining the relationships between Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. We searched PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and identified 109 eligible studies. The overall vaccination intention rate was 68.19%. Perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues to action were the three most frequently demonstrated predictors of vaccination intention for both primary series and booster vaccines. For booster doses, the influence of susceptibility slightly increased, but the impact of severity, self-efficacy, and cues to action on vaccination intention declined. The impact of susceptibility increased, but severity's effect declined sharply from 2020 to 2022. The influence of barriers slightly declined from 2020 to 2021, but it skyrocketed in 2022. Conversely, the role of self-efficacy dipped in 2022. Susceptibility, severity, and barriers were dominant predictors in Saudi Arabia, but self-efficacy and cues to action had weaker effects in the USA. Susceptibility and severity had a lower impact on students, especially in North America, and barriers had a lower impact on health care workers. However, cues to action and self-efficacy had a dominant influence among parents. The most prevalent modifying variables were age, gender, education, income, and occupation. The results show that HBM is useful in predicting vaccine intention.

Why Some People Are Hesitant to Receive COVID-19 Boosters: A Systematic Review.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and transitions to an endemic stage, booster vaccines will play an important role in personal and public health. However, convincing people to take boosters continues to be a key obstacle. This study systematically analyzed research that examined the predictors of COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. A search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus uncovered 42 eligible studies. Globally, the average COVID-19 booster vaccination hesitancy rate was 30.72%. Thirteen key factors influencing booster hesitancy emerged from the literature: demographics (gender, age, education, income, occupation, employment status, ethnicity, and marital status), geographical influences (country, region, and residency), adverse events, perceived benefit/efficacy, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, prior history of COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, vaccination recommendations, health status, knowledge and information, skepticism/distrust/conspiracy theories, and vaccine type. Vaccine communication campaigns and interventions for COVID boosters should focus on factors influencing booster confidence, complacency, and convenience.

Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study systematically analyzed the literature using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a theoretical framework to examine the influence of its constructs on vaccination intention against COVID-19. Quantitative studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following the PRISMA guidelines. The average rate of COVID-19 vaccination intention was 73.19%, ranging from 31% to 88.86%. Attitude had the strongest association with vaccination intention (r+ = 0.487, 95% CI: 0.368-0.590), followed by subjective norms (r+ = 0.409, 95% CI: 0.300-0.507), and perceived behavioral control (r+ = 0.286, 95% CI: 0.198-0.369). Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled effect sizes of TPB constructs on vaccination intention varied across geographic regions and study populations. Attitude had large effect sizes in Asia, Europe, and Oceania, especially among the adult general population, parents, and patients. Subjective norms had large effect sizes in Asia and Oceania, especially among parents and patients. Perceived behavioral control was the most dominant predictor of vaccination acceptance in Africa among patients. These findings suggest that TPB provides a useful framework for predicting intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Hence, public awareness and educational programs aimed at promoting COVID-19 vaccination intention should consider using TPB as a framework to achieve the goal.

The Health Belief Model Applied to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review.

This study systematically analyzes the research that used the Health Belief Model (HBM) as a theoretical basis to examine the influence of HBM constructs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched for quantitative studies. Sixteen studies with 30,242 participants met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 33.23% (95% CI 24.71-41.39%). Perceived barriers and perceived benefits were the most common HBM constructs that were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. While perceived benefits was inversely associated, a positive association was found between perceived barriers and vaccine hesitancy. Other HBM constructs that were frequently examined and inversely associated were perceived susceptibility, cues to action, perceived severity, and self-efficacy. The most common HBM modifying factor that was directly associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was gender, followed by education, age, geographical locations, occupation, income, employment, marital status, race, and ethnicity; however, a few studies report inconsistent results. Other modifying variables that influenced vaccine hesitancy were knowledge of COVID-19, prior diagnosis of COVID-19, history of flu vaccination, religion, nationality, and political affiliation. The results show that HBM is useful in predicting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.