DDRIG in DRMS: Lay Understanding of Vaccine Efficacy

DRMS 中的 DDRIG：了解疫苗功效

• 批准号: 2149406
• 负责人: Gretchen Chapman
• 金额: $ 2.25万
• 依托单位: Carnegie-Mellon University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2022
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2022-02-01 至 2024-01-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2149406&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: DDRIG; DRMS; Lay; Understanding; Vaccine

Efficacy rates for COVID-19 vaccines have received major attention in scientific journal articles and news media outlets. Further, many sources emphasize the high efficacy rates for the three vaccines with FDA or FDA EUA status in the United States. For example, the mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine boasts an efficacy rate of 95% against the original strain of the COVID-19 virus, meaning that over the duration of a 3-month period in which 1% of the population without the vaccine contracted COVID-19, we could expect about 0.05% of vaccinated people to contract COVID-19 (95% lower). However, many lay people may not understand how vaccine efficacy rates are computed, and the 95% efficacy rate could be misunderstood to mean that 95% of vaccinated people will be protected from disease, implying that 5% of vaccinated people will become diseased with COVID-19. This project examines how lay people (such as patients) use health-related numerical information, sheds light on the basic cognitive processes underlying misuse of vaccine efficacy numbers and speaks to the broader question of how to present numerical health information in a way that lay people can understand and effectively use. The research identifies the degree to which different facets of cognitive processing (e.g., knowing how to use the mathematical formula, understanding the concept of relative risk reduction, and engaging in deliberation or comparison processes) act as facilitators to providing the normative response. Findings from the proposed research have the potential to foster informed medical decision making and patient agency. Understanding how lay people understand vaccine efficacy is highly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic when conversations about vaccine efficacy receive increased attention and interest from patients. Given the strong association between perceived vaccine efficacy and vaccination intention, it is critical to identify and correct misconceptions in patients’ understanding of vaccine efficacy statistics.The COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread discussion of efficacy rates for COVID-19 vaccines in scientific journal articles and news media outlets, but little is known about how well lay people understand vaccine efficacy, which entails a fairly sophisticated mathematical calculation. This research tests the prediction that lay people are lured by a plausible and computationally simple but incorrect calculation: post-vaccination risk of infection = 1 - efficacy. For example, the lure response would be that after receiving a 95% effective vaccine a person has a 5% risk of getting infected. Previous medical decision-making research demonstrates that patients, especially those low in numeracy, often have difficulty understanding numerical information, which has a consequential impact on their health decisions and health outcomes. Moreover, prior cognition research provides evidence of quick, intuitive responses that may be analogous to the lure response in the vaccine efficacy context. This series of studies investigates the extent to which laypeople improperly interpret efficacy and whether this misunderstanding is associated with individual characteristics such as numeracy, cognitive reflection, and scientific literacy. First, hypothetical scenario experiments are employed to better understand how lay people utilize information about vaccine efficacy. Scenarios that vary information about fictitious vaccines illuminate the extent to which lay people improperly understand efficacy (for example, by answering that a vaccine that is 95% effective means that 5% of vaccinated people will get infected). Additional studies test a tutorial designed to improve viewers’ conceptual understanding of vaccine efficacy. Two versions of the tutorial differ in their emphasis on the mathematical formula vs. the concept of relative risk reduction, enabling a test of which of these facets is the major barrier to normative responses. Final studies examine a debiasing method that prompts participants to make an implicit comparison of disease risk between untreated and treated groups, testing the hypothesis that misunderstandings about vaccine efficacy stem from a failure to consider a comparison between a placebo group and a vaccinated group.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.

Covid-19疫苗的功效率在科学期刊文章和新闻媒体媒体上受到了主要关注。此外，许多消息来源强调了美国具有FDA或FDA EUA状态的三种疫苗的高效率率。例如，基于mRNA的辉瑞-biontech疫苗与Covid-19病毒的原始菌株的有效率为95％，这意味着在3个月的时间内，没有疫苗的COVID-CONCOVID-19，我们可以期望获得约0.05％的疫苗接种人，以降低了Covid-195％（95％）（95％）。但是，许多外行人可能不了解如何计算疫苗效率，而95％的效率率可能是误解的，这意味着95％的接种疫苗的人会受到疾病的保护，这意味着5％的接种疫苗的人会因199名而被剥离。该项目考试如何使用与健康相关的数值信息（例如患者），阐明了滥用疫苗有效性数字的基本认知过程，并提出了更广泛的问题，即如何以外行人可以理解并有效使用的方式来呈现数值健康信息。该研究确定了认知处理的不同方面（例如，知道如何使用数学公式，了解相对风险的概念以及参与审议或比较过程的概念）是提供正常响应的促进者。拟议研究的发现有可能促进知情的医疗决策和患者机构。当关于疫苗效率的对话受到患者的关注和兴趣时，了解疫苗的效率如何理解疫苗的效率高度相关。鉴于感知到的疫苗效率与疫苗意图之间的密切关联，至关重要的是要识别和纠正患者对疫苗效率统计的理解的理解和纠正概念。COVID-19促使人们对Covid-19的有效性率进行了广泛讨论，该疫苗在科学期刊和新闻媒体和新闻媒体中的有效性率很少，但几乎没有知识的效率，该疫苗的效率很少。这项研究检验了一个预测，即外行人被合理且计算简单但不正确的计算引诱：感染后风险= 1-有效性。例如，诱饵反应是，在接受95％有效疫苗后，一个人患有5％的感染风险。先前的医疗决策研究表明，患者，尤其是那些含量低的患者通常很难理解数值信息，这会对他们的健康决策和健康结果产生影响。此外，先前的认知研究提供了快速，直观反应的证据，这些反应可能类似于疫苗有效性背景下的诱饵反应。这一系列研究调查了外行不当地解释效率的程度，以及这种误解是否与数值，认知反射和科学素养等个体特征有关。首先，采用假设的场景实验来更好地理解Lay Lays如何利用有关疫苗效率的信息。有关虚拟疫苗的各种信息的方案阐明了外行人提高效率的程度（例如，通过回答95％有效的疫苗意味着5％的疫苗接种人员将被感染）。其他研究测试了旨在提高观众对疫苗效率的概念理解的教程。教程差异的两个版本是它们对数学公式的重视与相对风险降低的概念，从而实现了这些方面的测试是正常响应的主要障碍。最终研究研究了一种辩解方法，该方法促使参与者对未经治疗和经过治疗的群体之间的疾病风险进行了隐含的比较，检验了以下假设，即关于疫苗效率的错觉源于未能考虑安慰剂组与疫苗接种组之间的比较，这是NSF的法律范围的审查，反映了由诚实的支持者进行评估，这表明了诚实的依据。