Trial reportBMC public health2015
Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation.Vaccine · 2023Pooled it
- Economic risk framing increases intention to vaccinate among Republican COVID-19 vaccine refusers.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Trial
- When do persuasive messages on vaccine safety steer COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and recommendations? Behavioural insights from a randomised controlled experiment in Malaysia.BMJ global health · 2022Trial
- Tackling Smoker Misperceptions About E-cigarettes Using Expert Videos.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Trial
- Explaining away the illusion of consensus.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Vaccination Conversations on X in Spanish and Catalan: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Correction approaches and hashtag framing in addressing Mpox misinformation on Instagram.Health education research · 2025Article
- Trust in official information as a key predictor of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: evidence from a Czech longitudinal survey study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation.Cytotherapy · 2024Article
- Strong correlational but no causal evidence on the link between the perception of scientific consensus and support for vaccination.PloS one · 2024Article
- Addressing Antivaccine Sentiment on Public Social Media Forums Through Web-Based Conversations Based on Motivational Interviewing Techniques: Observational Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2023Observational
- Combatting rumors around the French election: the memorability and effectiveness of fact-checking articles.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Vaccinating across the aisle: using co-partisan source cues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the ideological right.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Forming and updating vaccination beliefs: does the continued effect of misinformation depend on what we think we know?Cognitive processing · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA substantial minority of American adults continue to hold influential misperceptions about childhood vaccine safety. Growing public concern and refusal to vaccinate poses a serious public health risk. Evaluations of recent pro-vaccine health communication interventions have revealed mixed results (at best). This study investigated whether highlighting consensus among medical scientists about childhood vaccine safety can lower public concern, reduce key misperceptions about the discredited autism-vaccine link and promote overall support for vaccines.
methodsAmerican adults (N = 206) were invited participate in an online survey experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or to one of three treatment interventions. The treatment messages were based on expert-consensus estimates and either normatively described or prescribed the extant medical consensus: "90 % of medical scientists agree that vaccines are safe and that all parents should be required to vaccinate their children".
resultsCompared to the control group, the consensus-messages significantly reduced vaccine concern (M = 3.51 vs. M = 2.93, p < 0.01) and belief in the vaccine-autism-link (M = 3.07 vs M = 2.15, p < 0.01) while increasing perceived consensus about vaccine safety (M = 83.93 vs M = 89.80, p < 0.01) and public support for vaccines (M = 5.66 vs M = 6.22, p < 0.01). Mediation analysis further revealed that the public's understanding of the level of scientific agreement acts as an important "gateway" belief by promoting public attitudes and policy support for vaccines directly as well as indirectly by reducing endorsement of the discredited autism-vaccine link.
conclusionThese findings suggest that emphasizing the medical consensus about (childhood) vaccine safety is likely to be an effective pro-vaccine message that could help prevent current immunization rates from declining. We recommend that clinicians and public health officials highlight and communicate the high degree of medical consensus on (childhood) vaccine safety when possible.
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.