Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34112276›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2023

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Daniel Freeman, Sinéad Lambe, Ly-Mee Yu, Jason Freeman, Andrew Chadwick, Cristian Vaccari, Felicity Waite, Laina Rosebrock, Ariane Petit, Samantha Vanderslott and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Reducing distress during vaccine injections: 2026 clinical practice guideline update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A systematic review.Journal of infection and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 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

16 authors.

Daniel FreemanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2541-2197
Sinéad LambeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ly-Mee YuNuffield Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jason FreemanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew ChadwickDepartment of Communication and Media, Online Civic Culture Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Cristian VaccariDepartment of Communication and Media, Online Civic Culture Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Felicity WaiteDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Laina RosebrockDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ariane PetitDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Samantha VanderslottOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephan LewandowskySchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Michael LarkinDepartment of Psychology, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Stefania InnocentiSmith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Helen McShaneThe Jenner Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew J PollardOxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Bao Sheng LoeThe Psychometrics Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 102176/B/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears.

methodsIn total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears.

resultsIn total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40,

conclusionsAcross the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Indexed as

COVID-19Phobic DisordersAdolescentAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesFearHumansCOVID-19 Vaccinesblood-injection-injury phobiaCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancyneedle fearsUK adults

Identifiers

PMID34112276
PMCPMC8220023

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.