Have you ever found yourself choosing the first option in a survey just because it was the first option you read?

Or you click OK on a website without reading the question just because the button is more colorful and more prominent?

This behavior in behavioral economics is called the hypothetical effect.

It is the phenomenon of increasing the likelihood that a particular option will be preferred simply because it is the default or easiest option.

We are faced with multiple choices in almost everything we do.

How these options are presented and arranged may sometimes contribute to our choices more than the content of the options themselves.

There is no doubt that a good percentage of those who are reluctant to vaccinate are categorically rejecting it, but there is a large percentage of people who are hesitant or who stand on the fence.

Anyone has the right to refuse, but it is important that this refusal be based on correct information

A nudge (or nudge) is the behavioral economics term for changing the way options are presented to obtain desired results.

The idea is this: any way of presenting options will inevitably lead to a preference for certain behaviors over others.

With this in mind, it is wise to design the display of options to get the best results or at least reduce the chances of getting unwanted results.

In many Arab countries, the biggest obstacle to increasing the rate of taking coronavirus vaccines is reluctance to take them. There is no doubt that a good percentage of those who are reluctant to vaccinate are categorically rejecting it, but there is a large percentage of people who are hesitant or who stand on the fence. Anyone has the right to refuse, but it is important that this refusal be based on correct information. It is important that all facilities are provided to those who do not mind receiving the vaccination. From my observations of some vaccination programs in the Arab countries, I think that some of the strategies used to display vaccinations may indirectly contribute to increasing their reluctance. I believe there are some changes in the way vaccinations are presented that may contribute to increasing the number of vaccinated people and reaching the desired community protection in a shorter time.

Remove obstacles to taking vaccinations as much as possible. Most countries use electronic platforms to register to receive the vaccine. This method is successful in societies that have a high proportion of those willing to take vaccinations, but it may constitute an important obstacle in societies where a large percentage of those who are hesitant about it. Finding ways to make appointments available to everyone without having to register on a particular platform might encourage the undecided or the neutral (and I think they're the majority). There are some studies, for example, that show that the turnout for cardiac rehabilitation appointments in heart patients was greater when they were assigned fixed appointments in advance without the need to register to take the appointment.

Providing vaccinations in the same places and times of receiving other medical services (clinic appointments, for example) can reduce the obstacles that prevent some people from receiving vaccinations.

This point is particularly important because a large proportion of those who use these medical services are at high risk of infection with the virus, and they are the most in need of vaccinations.

It is important to reformulate the message about vaccinations to make receiving the vaccine the default or easiest option.

For example, assuming that everyone wants to get the vaccine instead of the other way around.

Follow the strategy of distributing vaccination appointments for everyone, regardless of refusal or lack of it.

With this strategy, the rejection may be the one who must register on a special platform and fill out a questionnaire for the reasons for the rejection.

It also helps to count the most common reasons for refusing the vaccine, which can be used to identify the most important points that must be addressed in the media to encourage receiving the vaccine.

Finally, there may be a role for dealing with the matter in a personal way. Establishing medical communication teams that contact vaccine refusers to answer any concerns or inquiries they may have could have a significant impact. As a physician, I know firsthand how personal communication from a healthcare professional can make a huge difference to many. Small changes in the way vaccinations are presented and dealing with massive reluctance to vaccines may be the only way to reach the societal protection we need now more than ever.