|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
on_going
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
This study evaluates how message framing and financial incentives affect influenza vaccination uptake among adults in Chinese community settings. We implement a four-arm individual-level randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing (1) a control group with no framed information, (2) neutral factual information, (3) positive frame emphasizing benefits of vaccination, and (4) negative frame emphasizing costs of non-vaccination. All arms include an identical monetary incentive component: a 50% chance of receiving a random payment between 10–100 RMB or 0 RMB otherwise.
The experiment aims to estimate: (i) the causal effect of positive and negative frames relative to control and neutral information on vaccination uptake; (ii) heterogeneity by individual baseline beliefs and vaccination intentions (susceptible, swing, resistant groups); (iii) the mediating role of belief updating; and (iv) the joint effect of framing and incentives on subsequent influenza-related health outcomes (ILI symptoms, work absence, health care use).
|
After
This study evaluates whether information framing and monetary incentives increase uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine among community residents. Participants are individually randomized to one of four information arms: (i) no additional information, (ii) neutral factual information, (iii) positively framed information emphasizing the benefits of vaccination, and (iv) negatively framed information emphasizing the risks of non-vaccination. Participants are also exposed to an incentive module that offers either no subsidy or a randomly assigned subsidy or lottery amount ranging from RMB 10 to RMB 100.
The study collects three survey waves: baseline, a midline follow-up 2–3 weeks after the intervention, and an endline follow-up at the end of the influenza season, approximately 3–4 months after the intervention. Primary outcomes are short-run vaccination uptake and cumulative end-of-season uptake. Secondary and intermediate outcomes include future vaccination intention, vaccination timing, beliefs about vaccine effectiveness and side effects, perceived influenza risk, barriers to vaccination, message exposure and message perception, and end-of-season health outcomes such as influenza-like illness, healthcare utilization, and missed work or school days.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
March 31, 2026
|
After
April 30, 2026
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 15, 2025 06:17 AM
|
After
April 24, 2026 09:08 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Four treatment arms:
T0 – Control: No framed message, participants receive only basic administrative information about vaccine access and eligibility.
T1 – Neutral information: Factual message (location, timing, cost, and safety standards).
T2 – Positive frame: Information emphasizing the benefits of vaccination—protecting oneself and family, reducing absence, contributing to herd immunity.
T3 – Negative frame: Information emphasizing the risks and losses from non-vaccination—higher infection risk, potential complications, cost of illness, transmission to family.
All information arms include identical factual content and frequency (three rounds of delivery via SMS/WeChat/poster at one–two week intervals).
Financial Incentive: Participants in all groups have a 50% probability of receiving a subsidy, randomly drawn between 10–100 RMB (uniform distribution), shown after baseline survey.
|
After
T0: Control group. Participants receive no additional vaccination information.
T1: Neutral information group. Participants receive objective factual information on where to get vaccinated, timing, costs, safety standards, and appointment procedures.
T2: Positive-framing group. Participants receive messages emphasizing the benefits of vaccination, such as protecting oneself and family members, reducing missed work or school, and contributing to herd immunity.
T3: Negative-framing group. Participants receive messages emphasizing the risks of non-vaccination, such as infection risk, complications, medical costs, and transmission to vulnerable household members.
Monetary incentive module. Participants are additionally assigned to either no subsidy or to a randomly determined monetary incentive/subsidy amount between RMB 10 and RMB 100. The study materials also describe this incentive module as a subsidy/lottery notification.
Primary hypotheses
H1. Subsidy effect on current uptake.
Higher subsidy amounts will increase verified flu-vaccination uptake in the current season.
H2. Information effect on current uptake.
Receiving any vaccine-information message will increase current-season vaccination uptake relative to receiving no information.
H3a. Complementarity between information and subsidy.
Information messages will strengthen the behavioral response to subsidies, so the marginal effect of subsidy on uptake will be larger in the information arms than in the control arm.
H3b. Substitutability between information and subsidy.
Information messages will substitute for the motivating effect of subsidies, so the marginal effect of subsidy on uptake will be smaller in the information arms than in the control arm.
H4. Framing effect of message content.
Message framing will matter for current-season vaccination uptake. In particular, framed messages (positive/gain or negative/loss) will have larger effects than a neutral informational message.
H5. Loss framing versus gain framing.
Negative/loss framing will generate a larger increase in current-season vaccination uptake than positive/gain framing.
H6. Framing effect on future intention. Information framing will affect stated future vaccination intention, including willingness to vaccinate in the next influenza season and willingness to vaccinate under lower out-of-pocket cost.
H7. Behavioral and attitudinal change. Information and subsidy treatments will shift beliefs about vaccine effectiveness, side-effect risk, and influenza risk, and will also affect behavioral margins such as stated intention, perceived barriers, and self-reported reasons for vaccination or non-vaccination.
H8. Health consequences of uptake. Higher vaccination uptake will be associated with lower influenza-like illness, lower healthcare utilization, and fewer missed work or school days over the influenza season.
Longer-run hypotheses
H9. Persistence of intervention effects.
Exposure to current-season subsidies and/or information will increase stated willingness to vaccinate in the following flu season even when next-season vaccination is not subsidized.
H10. Information sustains future motivation.
Information messages paired with subsidies will produce more persistent future vaccination intention than subsidies alone.
Mechanism hypotheses
H11. Belief updating.
Information messages will improve vaccine-related beliefs, including perceived effectiveness, perceived safety, and/or perceived benefits of vaccination.
H12. Beliefs as a mediator.
Part of the effect of information messages on current-season uptake and future intention will operate through changes in vaccine-related beliefs.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
November 15, 2025
|
After
December 15, 2025
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Self-reported influenza vaccination status at Follow-up 1 or 2 (binary).
|
After
Vaccine uptake: whether the participant reports having received the current season’s influenza vaccine at the midline follow-up.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Design type: Individual-level RCT with stratified block randomization.
Stratification variables: gender, age group (≤35 / 36–59 / ≥60), prior influenza vaccination (yes/no), baseline intention (low/medium/high), and risk category (susceptible, swing, resistant).
Blinding: Enumerators not blinded, but information delivery automated to minimize implementation bias.
Timeline:
Baseline (Survey 1): Before randomization; measures demographics, vaccination history, beliefs, intentions, barriers.
Follow-up 1: 2–3 weeks post-intervention (mid-season).
Follow-up 2: End of influenza season (12–16 weeks).
|
After
This is an individually randomized controlled trial. The design materials target an overall sample of approximately 1,300 participants, with about 300 participants assigned to each of the four information arms. If recruitment falls short of the target, the design calls for keeping cell sizes as balanced as possible while preserving balance on key baseline characteristics. Random assignment is stratified using baseline characteristics including gender, age, whether the participant was vaccinated in the previous influenza season, and baseline vaccination intention. The study collects three survey waves: a baseline survey before treatment, a midline survey 2–3 weeks after the intervention, and an endline survey at the end of the influenza season, approximately 3–4 months after the intervention.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Computerized stratified block randomization conducted in the survey platform prior to message delivery.
|
After
Computerized randomization was conducted in the survey platform prior to message delivery.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
4000 Individuals
|
After
50 cities
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
4000 Individuals
|
After
1200 Individuals
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
1000 Individuals for each arm
|
After
300 Individuals for each arm
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Timing of vaccination (days since intervention).
Influenza-like illness (ILI) incidence, duration, and medical visits.
Work/school absenteeism due to illness.
Change in beliefs (safety, effectiveness, perceived risk).
Recall of message content (information retention).
|
After
Vaccination behavior:
• Vaccination date, timing of uptake, out-of-pocket vaccination cost, vaccine brand, and self-reported reasons for vaccination.
• For participants not yet vaccinated, self-reported reasons for non-vaccination and remaining barriers to uptake.
Current and future intentions:
• Current vaccination intention at midline (intent_f1).
• Vaccination intention under full reimbursement or zero price (intent_free_f1).
• Endline stated likelihood of vaccinating in the next influenza season.
Beliefs and attitudes:
• Perceived vaccine effectiveness.
• Perceived side-effect risk.
• Perceived influenza risk for the general population.
• Perceived own influenza risk and perceived relative risk compared with peers.
• Changes in attitudes toward the vaccine and toward influenza over the season.
Message exposure and treatment-response measures:
• Whether the participant saw the study message.
• Perceived framing of the message.
• Message credibility, persuasiveness, irritation, and sharing behavior.
• Exposure to and participation in the subsidy or lottery notification.
Health and utilization outcomes:
• Any influenza-like illness symptoms.
• Symptom duration.
• Healthcare utilization for influenza-like illness.
• Missed work or school days.
• Overall impact of influenza on daily life.
Additional behavioral follow-through outcomes:
• Alignment between baseline intention and realized vaccination behavior.
• Self-reported reasons for intention-behavior mismatch.
• Main stated driver of the final vaccination decision.
|