Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29951010›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018

Parental Decision-Making on Childhood Vaccination.

Kaja Damnjanović, Johanna Graeber, Sandra Ilić, Wing Y Lam, Žan Lep, Sara Morales, Tero Pulkkinen, Loes Vingerhoets

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Cross-Sectional Study Examining Vaccine Uptake and Attitudes Among Parents Compared to Other Adults.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Kaja DamnjanovićLaboratory for Experimental Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Johanna GraeberDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Sandra IlićLaboratory for Experimental Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Wing Y LamFaculty of Social Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
Žan LepDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Sara MoralesFaculty of Psychology, University of Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain.
Tero PulkkinenDepartment of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Loes VingerhoetsDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of parents delay vaccinations or are deciding not to vaccinate their children altogether. This increases the risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases and disrupting herd immunity, and also impairs the trust in the capacities of health care systems to protect people. Vaccine hesitancy is related to a range of both psychological and demographic determinants, such as attitudes toward vaccinations, social norms, and trust in science. Our aim is to understand those determinants in parents, because they are a special group in this issue-they act as proxy decision makers for their children, who are unable to decide for themselves. The fact that deciding to vaccinate is a socially forced choice that concerns a child's health makes vaccine-related decisions highly important and involving for parents. This high involvement might lead to parents overemphasizing the potential side effects that they know to be vaccine-related, and by amplifying those, parents are more focused on the potential outcomes of vaccine-related decisions, which can yield specific pattern of the outcome bias. We propose two related studies to investigate factors which promote vaccine hesitancy, protective factors that determine parental vaccination decisions, and outcome bias in parental vaccination intentions. We will explore demographic and psychological factors, and test parental involvement related to vaccine hesitancy using an online battery in a correlation panel design study. The second study is an experimental study, in which we will investigate the moderating role of parents' high involvement in the specific domain of vaccination decision making. We expect that higher involvement among parents, compared to non-parents, will shape the pattern of the proneness to outcome bias. The studies will be conducted across eight countries in Europe and Asia (Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom), rendering findings that will aid with understanding the underlying mechanisms of vaccine hesitancy and paving the way for developing interventions custom-made for parents.

Indexed as

decision-makinghealth decisionsimmunizationinvolvementoutcome biasparentsvaccinevaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID29951010
PMCPMC6008886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.