Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30532274›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination.

Cornelia Betsch, Philipp Schmid, Dorothee Heinemeier, Lars Korn, Cindy Holtmann, Robert Böhm

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07721649 (Intrahospital Vaccination and Active Counseling Versus Active Counseling Alone to Increase Seasonal Influenza immUnization in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk in Germany), which is not on this map. Cited by 758 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
758citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
54.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07721649 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Intrahospital Vaccination and Active Counseling Versus Active Counseling Alone to Increase Seasonal Influenza immUnization in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk in Germany: The Randomized Controlled VACC-UP Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorStephan BaldusRan2026 to 2029Enrolled482ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndrome, Heart Failure, Influenza, Human, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsIntrahospital seasonal influenza vaccination offer, Standardized active influenza vaccination counseling, Standard of care discharge recommendation for ambulatory vaccination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

758 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,253 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

698 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cornelia BetschCEREB - Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2856-7303
Philipp SchmidCEREB - Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2966-0806
Dorothee HeinemeierCEREB - Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1384-1901
Lars KornCEREB - Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Cindy HoltmannCEREB - Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Robert BöhmSchool of Business and Economics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
University of Erfurt · DERWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring the reasons why a considerable number of people do not receive recommended vaccinations allows identification of important trends over time, and designing and evaluating strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Existing validated measures assessing vaccine hesitancy focus primarily on confidence in vaccines and the system that delivers them. However, empirical and theoretical work has stated that complacency (not perceiving diseases as high risk), constraints (structural and psychological barriers), calculation (engagement in extensive information searching), and aspects pertaining to collective responsibility (willingness to protect others) also play a role in explaining vaccination behavior. The objective was therefore to develop a validated measure of these 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. METHODS AND

findingsThree cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 uses factor analysis to develop an initial scale and assesses the sub-scales' convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity (N = 1,445, two German convenience-samples). In Study 2, a sample representative regarding age and gender for the German population (N = 1,003) completed the measure for vaccination in general and for specific vaccinations to assess the potential need for a vaccine-specific wording of items. Study 3 compared the novel scale's performance with six existing measures of vaccine hesitancy (N = 350, US convenience-sample). As an outcome, a long (15-item) and short (5-item) 5C scale were developed as reliable and valid indicators of confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility. The 5C sub-scales correlated with relevant psychological concepts, such as attitude (confidence), perceived personal health status and invulnerability (complacency), self-control (constraints), preference for deliberation (calculation), and communal orientation (collective responsibility), among others. The new scale provided similar results when formulated in a general vs. vaccine-specific way (Study 2). In a comparison of seven measures the 5C scale was constantly among the scales that explained the highest amounts of variance in analyses predicting single vaccinations (between 20% and 40%; Study 3). The present studies are limited to the concurrent validity of the scales.

conclusionsThe 5C scale provides a novel tool to monitor psychological antecedents of vaccination and facilitates diagnosis, intervention design and evaluation. Its short version is suitable for field settings and regular global monitoring of relevant antecedents of vaccination.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareRisk AssessmentVaccination

Identifiers

PMID30532274
PMCPMC6285469
OpenAlexW2904860816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.