ArticlePloS one2021
The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2023Pooled it
- Nudging toward vaccination: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2021Pooled it
- Testing the persuasiveness of conspiracy theories: a comparison of narrative and argumentative strategies.Cognitive processing · 2025Article
- Vaccination Conversations on X in Spanish and Catalan: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Author Correction: A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Use of narratives to enhance childhood vaccine acceptance: Results of an online experiment among Canadian parents.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among indigenous peoples in Quebec, Canada: Insights from a facebook posts and comments analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Trust in the science behind COVID-19 vaccines as a driver of vaccine acceptance in the United States, 2021-2023.Vaccine: X · 2024Article
- Context dependent preferences in prestige bias learning about vaccination in rural Namibian pastoralists.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2024Article
- Immediate initiation of antiretroviral treatment: knowledge, attitudes, and practices among clinic staff in New York City.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- The "Survival Pending Revolution" COVID-19 vaccination campaign: an example of critical communication theory in action.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Estimating the size of "anti-vax" and vaccine hesitant populations in the US, UK, and Canada: comparative latent class modeling of vaccine attitudes.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Examining drivers of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Trust in the public health system as a source of information on vaccination matters most when environments are supportive.Vaccine · 2022Article
- Conspiracy beliefs and distrust of science predicts reluctance of vaccine uptake of politically right-wing citizens.Vaccine · 2022Article
- Facts Tell, Stories Sell? Assessing the Availability Heuristic and Resistance as Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Persuasive Effects of Vaccination Narratives.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Content and Dynamics of Websites Shared Over Vaccine-Related Tweets in COVID-19 Conversations: Computational Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Vaccine Hesitancy and Trust in the Scientific Community in Italy: Comparative Analysis from Two Recent Surveys.Vaccines · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents' (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.
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.