Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake: an online three-wave survey study of US adults.

BACKGROUND: To effectively promote vaccine uptake, it is important to understand which people are most and least inclined to be vaccinated and why. In this study, we examined predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for non-vaccination. METHODS: We conducted an online English-language survey study in December-2020, January-2021, and March-2021. A total of 930 US respondents completed all surveys. Multiple logistic regression models were run to test whether the early vaccine eligibility, demographic factors, and psychological factors predict getting at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination in January-2021 and in March-2021. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents who received ≥ 1-dose of a COVID-19 vaccine increased from 18% (January) to 67% (March). Older age predicted vaccine uptake in January (OR = 2.02[95%CI = 1.14-3.78], p < .001) and March (10.92[6.76-18.05], p < .001). In January, additional predictors were higher numeracy (1.48[1.20-1.86], p < .001), COVID-19 risk perceptions (1.35[1.03-1.78], p = .029), and believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.66[1.05-2.66], p = .033). In March, additional predictors of uptake were believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.63[1.15-2.34], p = .006), prior COVID-19 vaccine intentions (1.37[1.10-1.72], p = .006), and belief in science (0.84[0.72-0.99], p = .041). Concerns about side effects and the development process were the most common reasons for non-vaccination. Unvaccinated respondents with no interest in getting a COVID-19 vaccine were younger (0.27[0.09-0.77], p = .016), held negative views about COVID-19 vaccines for adults (0.15[0.08-0.26], p < .001), had lower trust in healthcare (0.59[0.36-0.95], p = .032), and preferred to watch and wait in clinically ambiguous medical situations (0.66[0.48-0.89], p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines were important predictors of uptake provides validation for studies using these measures and reinforces the need to develop strategies for addressing safety and development concerns which remain at the forefront of vaccine hesitancy.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Bilingual Nutrition Education Program in Partnership with a Mobile Health Unit.

There are limited reports of community-based nutrition education with culinary instruction that measure biomarkers, particularly in low-income and underrepresented minority populations. Teaching kitchens have been proposed as a strategy to address social determinants of health, combining nutrition education, culinary demonstration, and skill building. The purpose of this paper is to report on the development, implementation, and evaluation of Journey to Health, a program designed for community implementation using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework. Reach and effectiveness were the primary outcomes. Regarding reach, 507 individuals registered for the program, 310 participants attended at least one nutrition class, 110 participants completed at least two biometric screens, and 96 participants attended at least two health coaching appointments. Participants who engaged in Journey to Health realized significant improvements in body mass index, blood pressure, and triglycerides. For higher risk participants, we additionally saw significant improvements in total and LDL cholesterol. Regarding dietary intake, we observed a significant increase in cups of fruit and a decrease in sugar sweetened beverages consumed per day. Our findings suggest that Journey to Health may improve selected biometrics and health behaviors in low-income and underrepresented minority participants.

Impact of prior COVID-19 infection on perceptions about the benefit and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

In this online survey of 1,733 US adults in December 2021, respondents believed COVID-19 vaccines are less beneficial and less safe for someone who had already had COVID-19. Those who experienced COVID-19 after being vaccinated believed that the vaccines are less beneficial and less safe than those who had not. Findings highlight the need to better communicate evolving evidence of COVID-19 vaccine benefit and safety and to tailor communications to peoples' COVID-19 history and vaccination status.

Veterans and Nonveterans Coping With Stress During 4 Months of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Identifying how people have been coping with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to anticipate how the population may react to similar stressors over time. In this study, we assessed patterns of coping styles among veterans and nonveterans, and stability and change in these strategies at 3 time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Using an online survey platform, we circulated a questionnaire at 3 time points during the period when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available (December 2-27, 2020; January 21-February 6, 2021; and March 8-23, 2021). The questionnaire asked participants about their extent of use of 11 coping strategies, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 2,085 participants (50.8% veterans) completed the questionnaire at 1 or more time points and 930 participants (62.8% veterans) completed it at all 3 time points. Cluster analysis identified 3 distinct coping styles: adaptive, distressed, and disengaged. Compared with nonveterans, veterans more commonly had adaptive and disengaged coping styles, and less commonly had a distressed coping style. The majority of the cohort (71.3%) changed coping style at least once during the study period. Participants who used the same coping style across all 3 time points reported lower levels of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a need to better understand the dynamic nature of coping with pandemic-level stressors across time. We did not find patterns of change in coping styles, but our findings point to potential advantages of stability in coping style. It is possible that less adaptive styles that are more stable may be advantageous for mental health. This research has implications for supporting patients dealing with stress in family medicine.

Parents' Psychological and Decision-Making Outcomes following Prenatal Diagnosis with Complex Congenital Heart Defect: An Exploratory Study.

Background. Parents with a fetus diagnosed with a complex congenital heart defect (CHD) are at high risk of negative psychological outcomes. Purpose. To explore whether parents' psychological and decision-making outcomes differed based on their treatment decision and fetus/neonate survival status. Methods. We prospectively enrolled parents with a fetus diagnosed with a complex, life-threatening CHD from September 2018 to December 2020. We tested whether parents' psychological and decision-making outcomes 3 months posttreatment differed by treatment choice and survival status. Results. Our sample included 23 parents (average Age[years]: 27 ± 4, range = 21-37). Most were women (n = 18), non-Hispanic White (n = 20), and married (n = 21). Most parents chose surgery (n = 16), with 11 children surviving to the time of the survey; remaining parents (n = 7) chose comfort-directed care. Parents who chose comfort-directed care reported higher distress (x¯ = 1.51, s = 0.75 v. x¯ = 0.74, s = 0.55; Mdifference = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.48) and perinatal grief (x¯ = 91.86, s = 22.96 v. x¯ = 63.38, s = 20.15; Mdifference = 27.18, 95% CI, 6.20-48.16) than parents who chose surgery, regardless of survival status. Parents who chose comfort-directed care reported higher depression (x¯ = 1.64, s = 0.95 v. x¯ = 0.65, s = 0.49; Mdifference = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.10-1.88) than parents whose child survived following surgery. Parents choosing comfort-directed care reported higher regret (x¯ = 26.43, s = 8.02 v. x¯ = 5.00, s = 7.07; Mdifference = 21.43, 95% CI, 11.59-31.27) and decisional conflict (x¯ = 20.98, s = 10.00 v. x¯ = 3.44, s = 4.74; Mdifference = 17.54, 95% CI; 7.75-27.34) than parents whose child had not survived following surgery. Parents whose child survived following surgery reported lower grief (Mdifference = -19.71; 95% CI, -39.41 to -0.01) than parents whose child had not. Conclusions. The results highlight the potential for interventions and care tailored to parents' treatment decisions and outcomes to support parental coping and well-being. Highlights: Question: Do the psychological and decision-making outcomes of parents differ based on their treatment decision and survival outcome following prenatal diagnosis with complex CHD?Findings: In this exploratory study, parents who decided to pursue comfort-directed care after a prenatal diagnosis reported higher levels of psychological distress and grief as well as higher decisional conflict and regret than parents who decided to pursue surgery.Meaning: The findings from this exploratory study highlight potential differences in parents' psychological and decision-making outcomes following a diagnosis of complex CHD for their fetus, which appear to relate to the treatment approach and the treatment outcome and may require tailoring of psychological and decision support.

Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Veterans and Nonveterans: Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies reported delays in health care usage due to safety concerns. Delays in care may result in increased morbidity and mortality from otherwise treatable conditions. Telehealth provides a safe alternative for patients to receive care when other circumstances make in-person care unavailable or unsafe, but information on patient experiences is limited. Understanding which people are more or less likely to use telehealth and their experiences can help tailor outreach efforts to maximize the impact of telehealth. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the characteristics of telehealth users and nonusers and their reported experiences among veteran and nonveteran respondents. METHODS: A nationwide web-based survey of current behaviors and health care experiences was conducted in December 2020-March 2021. The survey consisted of 3 waves, and the first wave is assessed here. Respondents included US adults participating in Qualtrics web-based panels. Primary outcomes were self-reported telehealth use and number of telehealth visits. The analysis used a 2-part regression model examining the association between telehealth use and the number of visits with respondent characteristics. RESULTS: There were 2085 participants in the first wave, and 898 (43.1%) reported using telehealth since the pandemic began. Most veterans who used telehealth reported much or somewhat preferring an in-person visit (336/474, 70.9%), while slightly less than half of nonveterans (189/424, 44.6%) reported this preference. While there was no significant difference between veteran and nonveteran likelihood of using telehealth (odds ratio [OR] 1.33, 95% CI 0.97-1.82), veterans were likely to have more visits when they did use it (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.07). Individuals were less likely to use telehealth and reported fewer visits if they were 55 years and older (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62 for ages 55-64 years; IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.66) or lived in a small city (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.92; IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99). Receiving health care partly or primarily at the Veterans Health Administration (VA) was associated with telehealth use (primarily VA: OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.20-4.81; equal mix: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.40-3.39) and more telehealth visits (primarily VA: IRR 1.5, 95% CI 1.10-2.04; equal mix: IRR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth will likely continue to be an important source of health care for patients, especially following situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Some groups who may benefit from telehealth are still underserved. Telehealth services and outreach should be improved to provide accessible care for all.

Effects of Prosocial and Hope-Promoting Communication Strategies on COVID-19 Worry and Intentions for Risk-Reducing Behaviors and Vaccination: Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered widespread fear and skepticism about recommended risk-reducing behaviors including vaccination. Health agencies are faced with the need to communicate to the public in ways that both provide reassurance and promote risk-reducing behaviors. Communication strategies that promote prosocial (PS) values and hope are being widely used; however, the existing research on the persuasiveness of these strategies has offered mixed evidence. There is also very little research examining the comparative effectiveness of PS and hope-promoting (HP) strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of PS and HP messages in reassuring the public and motivating COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors. METHODS: A web-based factorial experiment was conducted in which a diverse sample of the US public was randomized to read messages which adapted existing COVID-19 information from a public website produced by a state government public health department to include alternative framing language: PS, HP, or no additional framing (control). Participants then completed surveys measuring COVID-19 worry and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination. RESULTS: COVID-19 worry was unexpectedly higher in the HP than in the control and PS conditions. Intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors did not differ between groups; however, intentions for COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the HP than in the control condition, and this effect was mediated by COVID-19 worry. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that HP communication strategies may be more effective than PS strategies in motivating risk-reducing behaviors in some contexts but with the paradoxical cost of promoting worry.

Demographic, structural, and psychological predictors of risk-increasing and mask wearing behaviors among US adults between December 2020-March 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To assess demographic, structural, and psychological predictors of risk-increasing and risk-decreasing behaviors METHODS: This study used data from an online longitudinal, three-wave COVID-19 survey (12/20-03/21) regarding the behaviors, attitudes, and experiences of US Veteran (n = 584) and non-Veteran (n = 346) adults. RESULTS: Inability to get groceries delivered emerged as the strongest predictor of more frequent risk-increasing behavior across all timepoints. Other consistent predictors of more frequent risk-increasing behavior and less frequent mask wearing included less worry about getting COVID-19, disbelief in science, belief in COVID-19 conspiracies, and negative perceptions of the state response. No demographic factor consistently predicted risk-increasing behavior or mask wearing, though different demographic predictors emerged for more frequent risk-increasing behaviors (e.g., lower health literacy) and mask-wearing (e.g., older age and urban residence) at certain timepoints. The most frequently endorsed reasons for having contact with others concerned health-related (food, medical care, and exercise) and social needs (seeing friends/family and boredom). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight key individual-level determinants of risk-increasing behaviors and mask wearing which encompass demographic, structural, and psychological factors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings can support public health experts and health communicators promote engagement with risk-reducing behaviors and address key barriers to engaging in these behaviors.

Parental Nonadherence to Health Policy Recommendations for Prevention of COVID-19 Transmission Among Children.

This survey study assesses whether parents had ever engaged in specific misrepresentation and nonadherence behaviors regarding public health measures for preventing COVID-19 transmission among children.

Parents' quality of life and health after treatment decision for a fetus with severe congenital heart defect.

PURPOSE: This exploratory study examines differences in parents' quality of life by treatment decision and the child's survival outcome in the context of life-threatening congenital heart disease (CHD). DESIGN AND METHODS: Parents of a fetus or neonate diagnosed with severe CHD enrolled in the observational control group of a clinical trial (NCT04437069) and completed quality of life (i.e., contact with clinicians, social support, partner relationship, state of mind), mental and physical health survey measures. Comparisons were made between parents who chose comfort-directed care or surgery and between those whose child did and did not survive. RESULTS: Parents who chose surgery and their child did not survive reported the most contact with their clinicians. Parents who chose comfort-directed care reported lower social support than parents who chose surgery and their child did not survive as well as poorer state of mind compared to parents who chose surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Some aspects of parents' quality of life differed based on their treatment decision. Parents who choose comfort-directed care are vulnerable to some negative outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Decision support tools and bereavement resources to assist parents with making and coping with a complex treatment decision is important for clinical care.

Misrepresentation and Nonadherence Regarding COVID-19 Public Health Measures.

Importance: The effectiveness of public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread and impact of SARS-CoV-2 relies heavily on honesty and adherence from the general public. Objective: To examine the frequency of, reasons for, and factors associated with misrepresentation and nonadherence regarding COVID-19 public health measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study recruited a national, nonprobability sample of US adults to participate in an online survey using Qualtrics online panels (participation rate, 1811 of 2260 [80.1%]) from December 8 to 23, 2021. The survey contained screening questions to allow for a targeted sample of one-third who had had COVID-19, one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were vaccinated, and one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were unvaccinated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey assessed 9 different types of misrepresentation and nonadherence related to COVID-19 public health measures and the reasons underlying such behaviors. Additional questions measured COVID-19-related beliefs and behaviors and demographic characteristics. Results: The final sample included 1733 participants. The mean (SD) participant age was 41 (15) years and the sample predominantly identified as female (1143 of 1732 [66.0%]) and non-Hispanic White (1151 of 1733 [66.4%]). Seven hundred twenty-one participants (41.6%) reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence in at least 1 of the 9 items; telling someone they were with or about to be with in person that they were taking more COVID-19 preventive measures than they actually were (420 of 1726 [24.3%]) and breaking quarantine rules (190 of 845 [22.5%]) were the most common manifestations. The most commonly endorsed reasons included wanting life to feel normal and wanting to exercise personal freedom. All age groups younger than 60 years (eg, odds ratio for those aged 18-29 years, 4.87 [95% CI, 3.27-7.34]) and those who had greater distrust in science (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]) had significantly higher odds of misrepresentation and/or nonadherence for at least 1 of the 9 items. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, nearly half of participants reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence regarding public health measures against COVID-19. Future work is needed to examine strategies for communicating the consequences of misrepresentation and nonadherence and to address contributing factors.

Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine development and safety.

PURPOSE: Beliefs that the risks from a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the risks from getting COVID-19 and concerns that the vaccine development process was rushed and lacking rigor have been identified as important drivers of hesitancy and refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested whether messages designed to address these beliefs and concerns might promote intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine. METHOD: We conducted an online survey fielded between March 8-23, 2021 with US Veteran (n = 688) and non-Veteran (n = 387) respondents. In a between-subjects experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to a control group (with no message) or to read one of two intervention messages: 1. a fact-box styled message comparing the risks of getting COVID-19 compared to the vaccine, and 2. a timeline styled message describing the development process of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. RESULTS: Most respondents (60%) wanted a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 17% expressed hesitancy and 23% did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The fact-box styled message and the timeline message did not significantly improve vaccination intentions, F(2,358) = 0.86, p = .425, [Formula: see text] = .005, or reduce the time respondents wanted to wait before getting vaccinated, F(2,306) = 0.79, p = .453, [Formula: see text] = .005, compared to no messages. DISCUSSION: In this experimental study, we did not find that providing messages about vaccine risks and the development process had an impact on respondents' vaccine intentions. Further research is needed to identify how to effectively address concerns about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the development process and to understand additional factors that influence vaccine intentions.

Communications to Promote Interest and Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines.

PURPOSE: Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and efficacy is crucial for promoting transparency and informed decision-making, but there is limited evidence on how to do so effectively. DESIGN: A within-subjects experiment. SETTING: Online survey from January 21 to February 6, 2021. SUBJECTS: 596 US Veterans and 447 non-Veterans. INTERVENTION: 5 messages about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and 4 messages about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. MEASURES: COVID-19 vaccine interest (1 = "I definitely do NOT want the vaccine" to 7 = "I definitely WANT the vaccine" with the midpoint 4 = "Unsure"). Confidence about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (1= "Not at all confident," 2 = "Slightly confident," 3 = "Somewhat confident," 4 = "Moderately confident," 5 = "Extremely confident"). RESULTS: Compared to providing information about side effects alone (M = 5.62 [1.87]), messages with additional information on the benefits of vaccination (M = 5.77 [1.82], P < .001, dz = .25), reframing the likelihood of side effects (M = 5.74 [1.84], P < .001, dz = .23), and emphasizing that post-vaccine symptoms indicate the vaccine is working (M = 5.72 [1.84], P < .001, dz = .17) increased vaccine interest. Compared to a vaccine efficacy message containing verbal uncertainty and an efficacy range (M = 3.97 [1.25]), messages conveying verbal certainty with an efficacy range (M = 4.00 [1.24], P = .042, dz=.08), verbal uncertainty focused on the upper efficacy limit (M = 4.03 [1.26], P < .001, dz = .13), and communicating the point estimate with certainty (M = 4.02 [1.25], P < .001, dz = .11) increased confidence. Overall, Veteran respondents were more interested (MVeterans = 5.87 [1.72] vs MNonVeterans = 5.45 [2.00], P < .001, d = .22) and confident (MVeterans = 4.13 [1.19] vs MNonVeterans = 3.84 [1.32], P < .001, d = .23) about COVID-19 vaccines than non-Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: These strategies can be implemented in large-scale communications (e.g., webpages, social media, and leaflets/posters) and can help guide healthcare professionals when discussing vaccinations in clinics to promote interest and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

Study protocol for a randomised clinical trial of a decision aid and values clarification method for parents of a fetus or neonate diagnosed with a life-threatening congenital heart defect.

INTRODUCTION: Parents who receive the diagnosis of a life-threatening, complex heart defect in their fetus or neonate face a difficult choice between pursuing termination (for fetal diagnoses), palliative care or complex surgical interventions. Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended in clinical contexts where there is clinical equipoise. SDM can be facilitated by decision aids. The International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration recommends the inclusion of values clarification methods (VCMs), yet little evidence exists concerning the incremental impact of VCMs on patient or surrogate decision making. This protocol describes a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (with and without a VCM) on parental mental health and decision making within a clinical encounter. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Parents who have a fetus or neonate diagnosed with one of six complex congenital heart defects at a single tertiary centre will be recruited. Data collection for the prospective observational control group was conducted September 2018 to December 2020 (N=35) and data collection for two intervention groups is ongoing (began October 2020). At least 100 participants will be randomised 1:1 to two intervention groups (decision aid only vs decision aid with VCM). For the intervention groups, data will be collected at four time points: (1) at diagnosis, (2) postreceipt of decision aid, (3) postdecision and (4) 3 months postdecision. Data collection for the control group was the same, except they did not receive a survey at time 2. Linear mixed effects models will assess differences between study arms in distress (primary outcome), grief and decision quality (secondary outcomes) at 3-month post-treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. Study findings have and will continue to be presented at national conferences and within scientific research journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04437069 (Pre-results).

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Experimental Study of an Uncertainty-Normalizing Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. METHODS: In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. RESULTS: The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Effect of information on reducing inappropriate expectations and requests for antibiotics.

People often expect antibiotics when they are clinically inappropriate (e.g., for viral infections). This contributes significantly to physicians' decisions to prescribe antibiotics when they are clinically inappropriate, causing harm to the individual and to society. In two pre-registered studies employing UK general population samples (n1  = 402; n2  = 190), we evaluated the relationship between knowledge and beliefs with antibiotic expectations, and the effects of information provision on such expectations. We conducted a correlational study (study 1), in which we examined the role of antibiotic knowledge and beliefs and an experiment (study 2) in which we assessed the causal effect of information provision on antibiotic expectations. In study 1, we found that both knowledge and beliefs about antibiotics predicted antibiotic expectations. In study 2, a 2 (viral information: present vs. absent) × 2 (antibiotic information: present vs. absent) experimental between-subjects design, information about antibiotic efficacy significantly reduced expectations for antibiotics, but viral aetiology information did not. Providing antibiotic information substantially diminishes inappropriate expectations of antibiotics. Health campaigns might also aim to change social attitudes and normative beliefs, since more complex sociocognitive processes underpin inappropriate expectations for antibiotics.

Action bias in the public's clinically inappropriate expectations for antibiotics.

Clinical guidelines recommend that physicians educate patients about illnesses and antibiotics to eliminate inappropriate preferences for antibiotics. We expected that information provision about illnesses and antibiotics would reduce but not eliminate inappropriate preferences for antibiotics and that cognitive biases could explain why some people resist the effect of information provision. In 2 experiments, participants (n1 = 424; n2 = 434) either received incomplete information (about the viral etiology of their infection) or complete information (about viral etiology and the ineffectiveness and harms of taking antibiotics), before deciding to rest or take antibiotics. Those in the complete information conditions responded to items on 4 biases: action bias, social norm, source discrediting, and information neglect. In 2 follow-up experiments (n1 = 150; n2 = 732), we aimed to counteract the action bias by reframing the perception of the resting option as an action. Complete information provision reduced but did not eliminate inappropriate preferences for antibiotics. Around 10% of people wanted antibiotics even when informed they are harmful and offer no benefit and even when the alternative option (i.e., rest) was framed as an active treatment option. Results suggest an action bias underpins this preference but appears challenging to counteract. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

'Always take your doctor's advice': Does trust moderate the effect of information on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing expectations?

Objectives To reduce overprescribing, health campaigns urge physicians to provide people with information regarding appropriate antibiotic use and encourage the public to trust their physicians' prescribing decisions. We test (1) whether providing individuals with complete information about the viral aetiology of an illness and the ineffectiveness of antibiotics will reduce inappropriate antibiotic expectations, (2) whether individuals with greater trust in their physician will have lower expectations, and (3) whether individuals with greater trust in their physician will benefit more from the complete information provision and have lower expectations. Design Experiment 1 features a between-subjects design (information provision: baseline vs. complete information) with a general measure of participants' trust in their physician. Experiment 2 features a 2 (physician trustworthiness: low vs. high) × 2 (information provision: baseline vs. complete information) between-subjects design. Methods In Experiment 1, participants (n = 366) reported their trust in their physician, read a vignette describing a hypothetical consultation with a physician for a viral cold and then expressed their expectations for antibiotics. In Experiment 2, participants (n = 380) read a vignette of a consultation with a physician for a viral ear infection then expressed their expectations for antibiotics. Results In both experiments, the provision of complete information significantly reduced inappropriate expectations for antibiotics. Greater trust in physicians was associated with higher antibiotic expectations in Experiment 1, but lower expectations in Experiment 2. In both experiments, trust in physicians appeared to facilitate the effect of information provision, but this effect was weak and inconsistent. Conclusion Providing information about viral aetiology and the ineffectiveness and side effects of antibiotics reduces inappropriate antibiotic expectations. Further research into the effect of trust in physicians as a moderator of the effect information provision is required, particularly given the recent increase in trust-based antibiotic campaigns. Statement of contribution What is already known Inappropriate expectations for antibiotics encourage overprescribing in primary care. To reduce inappropriate expectations, interventions often aim to educate people about antibiotics and encourage them to trust their physician. What does this study add Causal evidence that clinical information provision reduces but does not eliminate inappropriate antibiotic expectations. We find that increased trust in physicians is not always associated with lower expectations for antibiotics. Although increased trust seemed to boost the effect of information provision, this effect was weak and inconsistent.