Purpose

COVID-19 vaccine misinformation contributed to vaccine hesitancy and preventable illness. This study tested whether a brief online game helps Canadian adults identify COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, and whether effects last one month. In the game, participants judged whether statements about COVID-19 vaccines were true or false and immediately received the correct answer with a brief evidence-based explanation, delivered in a game-like format with points, ranks, and feedback. Adults from a national non-probability online panel (n = 4,071) were randomized to the game, to the identical corrective content presented as a static blog post, or to a no-activity control. The game and blog groups were assessed immediately after the activity; all three groups were reassessed approximately one month later. The hypothesis was that gamified corrective information would produce more accurate knowledge than the same information presented as a static blog post and, at one month, than no activity. The primary outcome was accuracy in identifying true and false claims; vaccination intention, vaccine confidence, and self-reported vaccination were secondary outcomes. This is the fourth study in a research program whose first three trials are registered in a companion record.

Conditions

Eligibility

Eligible Ages
Over 18 Years
Eligible Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Inclusion Criteria

  • Canadian residents aged 18 or older - Internet access - Able to complete the questionnaire in English or French (fielded nationwide, including Quebec)

Exclusion Criteria

  • Employment in market research, advertising, media, or by a political party

Study Design

Phase
N/A
Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description
Three-arm parallel randomized trial with baseline, immediate posttest (Game and Blog arms only), and one-month follow-up (all arms).
Primary Purpose
Other
Masking
None (Open Label)

Arm Groups

ArmDescriptionAssigned Intervention
Experimental
Game
Gamified refutation quiz covering COVID-19 vaccine misinformation items, with immediate per-item corrective feedback, followed by immediate post-intervention assessments and one-month follow-up.
  • Behavioral: Gamified misinformation refutation quiz
    Single-session online game in which participants judged a larger set of true/false statements about COVID-19 vaccines. Immediately after each response, participants received the correct answer and a brief evidence-based refutation within a gamified interface featuring points, ranks, and affective feedback. The game was administered in English or French. Six selected items from the game content were used in the survey-based knowledge outcome measure.
Active Comparator
Text
Identical refutational content delivered as a static blog post text, followed by immediate post-intervention assessments and one-month follow-up.
  • Behavioral: Refutational text blog post (active control)
    Identical refutational content delivered as a static blog post with no game elements. Administered in English or French.
No Intervention
Control
No activity. Completed the Wave 1 baseline and the one-month follow-up only; no immediate assessment by design.

Recruiting Locations

More Details

NCT ID
NCT07758296
Status
Completed
Sponsor
University of South Carolina

Detailed Description

This randomized controlled trial was the fourth study in a research program evaluating digital educational interventions to counter COVID-19 misinformation. The first three studies were conducted under a separate exempt determination from the University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board (Pro00099400) before participant enrollment and are registered in a companion record. This trial received a separate exempt determination (Pro00122534). This record retrospectively registers the completed trial. The trial used the same intervention platform as the earlier studies: a true/false quiz covering a larger set of circulating COVID-19 vaccine misinformation items, with each response followed immediately by item-level refutational feedback (the correct answer plus a brief evidence-based explanation) embedded in a gamified interface with points, ranks, and affective feedback. A six-item subset was administered in the study surveys to measure knowledge accuracy. Participants (N = 4,071) were recruited from a national non-probability online panel in Canada (Prodege, fielded by Nanos Research) and randomized to three arms: Game (n = 1,168), Text - the identical refutational content texts as a static blog post (n = 1,288), or no-activity Control (n = 1,615). The questionnaire was administered in English and French nationwide, including Quebec. All arms completed a Wave 1 baseline (fielded December 8-30, 2022); Game and Text then received their assigned activity and an immediate posttest; the Control arm received no activity and, by design, no immediate assessment. All three arms were reassessed at Wave 2, approximately one month later (January 23-February 13, 2023); 2,079 of 4,071 (51.1%) were retained. Two contrasts were confirmatory: Game versus Text (incremental effect of gamified delivery; evaluated immediately and at one month) and Game versus Control (total intervention effect; one-month horizon, as the Control arm had no immediate assessment). Text versus Control was descriptive. Immediate analyses included all 2,456 participants randomized to the Game and Text arms. No post-randomization data-quality exclusions were applied. One-month analyses included all 2,079 participants who completed Wave 2; nonparticipation at Wave 2 was treated as loss to follow-up rather than an analytic exclusion.

Notice

Study information shown on this site is derived from ClinicalTrials.gov (a public registry operated by the National Institutes of Health). The listing of studies provided is not certain to be all studies for which you might be eligible. Furthermore, study eligibility requirements can be difficult to understand and may change over time, so it is wise to speak with your medical care provider and individual research study teams when making decisions related to participation.