ArticleInternational journal of behavioral medicine2014
Morality, responsibility and risk: the importance of alternative perspectives in vaccination research.
Article in International journal of behavioral medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Young Men's Communication Needs for the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine: A Cross-Cultural, Qualitative Analysis in Scotland, Spain, and the USA.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Commentary and methodological insights: Reaching girls/women, boys/men and vulnerable groups to maximise uptake for the Human papillomavirus vaccine.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Conflicting and complementary notions of responsibility in caregiver's and health care workers' vaccination narratives in the Philippines.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Introduction to the special section: cross-cultural beliefs, attitudes, and dilemmas about vaccination.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe four papers presented in this special section together provide a striking example of the importance of eliciting people's understandings and meanings of vaccinations, from parents and children to health and medical professionals. PURPOSE: This commentary reflects on the findings of the papers in this special section and considers them within a broader sociocultural view on vaccination research.
methodsThe four papers in the special section were integrated with previous research and scholarship on public health and vaccinations.
resultsThe studies demonstrate how both uptake of vaccinations and their meanings vary by cultural context, most notably across Eastern and Western Europe, and the fundamental role that political, economic and healthcare systems play. Nevertheless, there are many similarities across seemingly diverse contexts. Three specific tensions are apparent across the findings (and within other vaccination research). These tensions revolve around (1) responsible citizen versus responsible individual, (2) scientific knowledge versus lay understandings and (3) uncertainty and risk versus certainty and trust.
conclusionThreaded through these tensions are discourses around citizenship, trust, morality, gender and power that are important to consider in research on vaccinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.