Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25136038›Full record

Trial reportPediatrics2014

Vaccine message framing and parents' intent to immunize their infants for MMR.

Kristin S Hendrix, S Maria E Finnell, Gregory D Zimet, Lynne A Sturm, Kathleen A Lane, Stephen M Downs

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The effect of herd immunity thresholds on willingness to vaccinate.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristin S HendrixDepartments of Pediatrics, and Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, Indiana; and kshendri@iu.edu.
S Maria E FinnellDepartments of Pediatrics, and Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Ryan White Center for Pediatric Infectious Disease, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Gregory D ZimetDepartments of Pediatrics, and.
Lynne A SturmDepartments of Pediatrics, and.
Kathleen A LaneBiostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana;
Stephen M DownsDepartments of Pediatrics, and Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, Indiana; and.
Pediatrics and Genetics · USIndiana University School of MedicineRegenstrief Institute · US

Funding

INDIANA CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTE (UL1): BPCAUL1RR025761 · NCRR · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2008 to 2011
$21.0M
NCRR NIH HHS RR025761NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveEmphasizing societal benefits of vaccines has been linked to increased vaccination intentions in adults. It is unclear if this pattern holds for parents deciding whether to vaccinate their children. The objective was to determine whether emphasizing the benefits of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination directly to the vaccine recipient or to society differentially impacts parents' vaccine intentions for their infants.

methodsIn a national online survey, parents (N = 802) of infants <12 months old were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 MMR vaccine messages: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Information Statement (VIS), (2) VIS and information emphasizing the MMR vaccine's benefits to the child, (3) VIS and information emphasizing societal benefits, or (4) VIS and information emphasizing benefits both to the child and society. Parents reported their likelihood of vaccinating their infants for MMR on a response scale of 0 (extremely unlikely) to 100 (extremely likely).

resultsCompared with the VIS-only group (mean intention = 86.3), parents reported increased vaccine intentions for their infants when receiving additional information emphasizing the MMR vaccine's benefits either directly to the child (mean intention = 91.6, P = .01) or to both the child and society (mean intention = 90.8, P = .03). Emphasizing the MMR vaccine's benefits only to society did not increase intentions (mean intention = 86.4, P = .97).

conclusionsWe did not see increases in parents' MMR vaccine intentions for their infants when societal benefits were emphasized without mention of benefits directly to the child. This finding suggests that providers should emphasize benefits directly to the child. Mentioning societal benefits seems to neither add value to, nor interfere with, information highlighting benefits directly to the child.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePilot ProjectsVaccinationYoung AdultMeasles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccineattitudescommunicationdecision-makingherd immunitymessagingMMRvaccinationvaccines

Identifiers

PMID25136038
PMCPMC4143998
OpenAlexW2109311509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.