Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33535717›Full record

ArticleVaccines2021

The Model of "Informed Refusal" for Vaccination: How to Fight against Anti-Vaccinationist Misinformation without Disregarding the Principle of Self-Determination.

Stefano D'Errico, Emanuela Turillazzi, Martina Zanon, Rocco Valerio Viola, Paola Frati, Vittorio Fineschi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An Overview of Strategies to Improve Vaccination Compliance before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.Ethics, medicine, and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Stefano D'ErricoDepartment of Surgery, Medicine and Health, University of Trieste, 34149 Trieste, Italy.
Emanuela TurillazziDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area, Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Martina ZanonDepartment of Surgery, Medicine and Health, University of Trieste, 34149 Trieste, Italy.
Rocco Valerio ViolaDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 336, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-2013
Paola FratiDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 336, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0358-7965
Vittorio FineschiDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 336, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1686-3236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines are arguably a public health success story as well as an incredibly cost-effective medical resource. Despite this, worldwide concerns about their safety are growing, with the risk of increased morbidity and mortality in vaccine-preventable diseases because of vaccine refusal. The global political trend in developed countries is to increasingly reduce mandates and the compulsory nature of vaccination programs. This is due to strong opposition from anti-vaccination movements and groups. While these have existed since the beginnings of vaccinology, they have recently gained a strong foothold through massive exploitation of the media and especially the internet. This has led to widespread misinformation and greater difficulty for governments and health institutions in dealing with parents' concerns and misconceptions. Common strategies in order to maintain a high degree of public acceptance of vaccines include the enhancement of adverse effect reporting systems, the enrichment of scientific literature, and the dissemination of targeted information to parents and health care providers. Vaccine risk perception, in fact, largely exceeds the evidence and is linked to well-known general population cognitive bias, which must be recognized and corrected. Although there is no doubt about the convenience of universal vaccination, a lively international debate is underway with regard to the legitimacy of mandatory vaccination programs. Most scientists agree that the individual's right to self-determination should be preserved. The only way to simultaneously protect the right to health is to introduce an informed refusal model, which aims to guarantee the highest coverage rates for vaccination.

Indexed as

anti-vaccination movementmisinformationrefusalvaccinationvaccine injury compensation

Identifiers

PMID33535717
PMCPMC7912813

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.