Objectives
This study aimed to assess the impact of high-level versus low-level construal messages about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (CVICP) on public attitudes toward the program and COVID-19 vaccination.
Methods
A randomized controlled experimental design was employed. Adults aged 18 to 64 residing in the Republic of Korea were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (high-level construal message) or a control group (low-level construal message). Both groups viewed a 2-minute video about the CVICP, with construal level as the sole variable. Pre- and post-intervention questionnaires evaluated attitudes toward the CVICP and COVID-19 vaccination, including satisfaction, perceived necessity, and perceived effectiveness in enhancing vaccine acceptance. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test, repeated measures 2-way analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression.
Results
The experimental group showed statistically significant improvements across all 6 attitude measures following exposure to the high-level construal message. By contrast, the control group demonstrated significant improvement in only 3 attitudes: satisfaction with the CVICP, willingness to recommend vaccination, and willingness for future vaccination. A significant difference between groups was observed for perceived effectiveness of the CVICP in enhancing vaccine acceptance (p=0.01), with high-level construal messaging being more impactful.
Conclusion
High-level construal messages are more effective than low-level messages in shaping public perceptions and addressing vaccine hesitancy. Policymakers and health authorities should incorporate high-level construal elements into communication strategies to build trust and support for vaccination programs.

This study aimed to establish a foundation for future collaborations aimed at preparing for and responding to infectious diseases by examining the vaccine injury compensation programs (VICPs) of East Asian countries. We reviewed the current status of VICPs in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Taiwan by searching national government websites and reviewing relevant literature. Additionally, we conducted email inquiries targeting experts from Japan and Taiwan. Through the comprehensive analysis of VICPs in these 3 countries covered various aspects, we identified several similarities and differences in the VICPs across these countries. While the governments of the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Taiwan play a central role in supporting investigations into vaccine injuries and managing compensation procedures based on legal statutes, they differ in terms of financial resources for compensation, the range of vaccines covered, and the criteria for assessing causality. In the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, compensation is typically paid in a lump sum, although the specific benefits available vary by country. This study on VICPs in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Taiwan provides valuable insights for the further development and management of domestic systems.