Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33979370›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Examining the effect of information channel on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Rachael Piltch-Loeb, Elena Savoia, Beth Goldberg, Brian Hughes, Tanner Verhey, Juliette Kayyem, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Marcia Testa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 104 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring COVID-19 Vaccine Decision Making: Insights from 'One-Shot Wonders' and 'Booster Enthusiasts'.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 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.

Rachael Piltch-LoebDivision of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Emergency Preparedness Research Evaluation & Practice [EPREP] Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6813-1934
Elena SavoiaDivision of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Emergency Preparedness Research Evaluation & Practice [EPREP] Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Beth GoldbergJigsaw, Google LLC, New York, New York, United States of America.
Brian HughesCenter for University Excellence [CUE] and Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab [PERIL], American University, Washington, DC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7069-4066
Tanner VerheyTrust and Safety, Google LLC, Sunnyvale, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7883-2929
Juliette KayyemHarvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Cynthia Miller-IdrissCenter for University Excellence [CUE] and Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab [PERIL], American University, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Marcia TestaDivision of Policy Translation & Leadership Development, Emergency Preparedness Research Evaluation & Practice [EPREP] Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine remains high among the US population. Now that the vaccine is available to priority populations, it is critical to convince those that are hesitant to take the vaccine. Public health communication about the vaccine as well as misinformation on the vaccine occurs through a variety of different information channels. Some channels of information are more commonly found to spread misinformation. Given the expansive information environment, we sought to characterize the use of different media channels for COVID-19 vaccine information and determine the relationship between information channel and vaccine acceptance. We used quota sampling of vaccine priority groups [N = 2,650] between December 13 and 23, 2020 and conducted bivariate chi-squared tests and multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses to determine the relative impact of channels of information on vaccine acceptance. We found traditional channels of information, especially National TV, National newspapers, and local newspapers increased the likelihood of vaccine acceptance. Individuals who received information from traditional media compared to social media or both traditional and social media were most likely to accept the vaccine. The implications of this study suggest social media channels have a role to play in educating the hesitant to accept the vaccine, while traditional media channels should continue to promote data-driven and informed vaccine content to their viewers.

Indexed as

AdultCommunicationCommunications MediaCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationMalePatient Acceptance of Health CarePublic HealthSARS-CoV-2Social MediaSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33979370
PMCPMC8116041

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.