Skip to content

An Online Game to Help Canadian Adults Identify COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation With One-Month Follow-Up

Leveraging Digital Tools to Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Adoption

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07758296
Enrollment
4071
Registered
2026-08-11
Start date
2022-12-08
Completion date
2023-02-13
Last updated
2026-08-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Communication, COVID-19, Health Misinformation, Vaccination Hesitancy

Keywords

misinformation, refutation, gamification, serious games, health education, vaccine hesitancy, infodemic, belief change, debunking, online intervention

Brief summary

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.

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.

Interventions

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.

BEHAVIORALRefutational text blog post (active control)

Identical refutational content delivered as a static blog post with no game elements. Administered in English or French.

Sponsors

University of South Carolina
Lead SponsorOTHER
Digital Public Square
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Three-arm parallel randomized trial with baseline, immediate posttest (Game and Blog arms only), and one-month follow-up (all arms).

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
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

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Knowledge Accuracy Score - ImmediateImmediately post-intervention, Day 1 (Game and Text arms only; the Control arm has no immediate assessment by design)Mean score across 6 true/false COVID-19 vaccine misinformation items, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy; "Unsure" responses received 0.5 points.
Mean Knowledge Accuracy Score - One MonthApproximately 1 month post-intervention (Wave 2), all arms.Mean score across 6 true/false COVID-19 vaccine misinformation items, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy; "Unsure" responses received 0.5 points.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Vaccination Intention ScoreBaseline (Wave 1); immediately post-intervention (Game and Text arms, Wave 1); approximately 1 month later (all arms, Wave 2)Single self-report item, scale 1-4, reversed-coded so higher scores indicate greater intention to vaccinate; identical pre-randomization baseline measure at Wave 1. "Are you likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the next 6 months (either a booster or a first vaccination)?" \[Likely / Somewhat likely / Somewhat unlikely / Unlikely\]
Mean COVID-19 Vaccine ConfidenceImmediately post-intervention (Game and Text arms, Wave 1); approximately 1 month later (all arms, Wave 2)Single self-report item, scale 0-10, higher scores indicating greater confidence. "On a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is no confidence at all and 10 is complete confidence, how much confidence do you have in COVID-19 vaccinations?" \[0-10\]
Percentage of Participants Reporting Receipt of a COVID-19 Vaccination or Booster in the Past 30 DaysApproximately 1 month post-intervention (Wave 2 only), all arms.Percentage of participants who reported receiving a COVID-19 vaccination or booster during the preceding 30 days at Wave 2. "Have you received or not received any of the following in the past 30 days? - A COVID-19 vaccination or booster." \[Received / Not received / Prefer not to say\]. "Prefer not to say" was treated as missing.

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 12, 2026