Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35048119›Full record

ArticleHealth education research2022

Pilot study of peer modeling with psychological inoculation to promote coronavirus vaccination.

A G Ramirez, C Despres, P Chalela, J Weis, P Sukumaran, E Munoz, A L McAlister

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health education research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A G RamirezDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Health Promotion Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7411 John Smith Drive, Suite 10.00, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
C DespresDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Health Promotion Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7411 John Smith Drive, Suite 10.00, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
P ChalelaDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Health Promotion Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7411 John Smith Drive, Suite 10.00, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
J WeisDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Health Promotion Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7411 John Smith Drive, Suite 10.00, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
P SukumaranDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Health Promotion Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7411 John Smith Drive, Suite 10.00, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
E MunozDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Health Promotion Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7411 John Smith Drive, Suite 10.00, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
A L McAlisterSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Austin Campus, 1616 Guadalupe, Suite 6.300, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Promoting coronavirus vaccination is deterred by misinformation, ranging from elaborate conspiracy theories about sinister purposes to exaggeration of side effects, largely promulgated by social media. In this pilot study, we tested the effects of different messages on actions leading to vaccination. Two theory-based advertisements were produced for Facebook, which provided video testimonials from peer role models recommending vaccination and its benefits while providing psychological inoculation through the models' acknowledging misinformation, rejecting it and receiving the vaccine. These ads were paid to appear on Facebook users' feeds in rural counties in South Texas, along with a generic vaccine promotion ad from the CDC without peer models or psychological inoculation. Ad viewers could click a link to 'find a vaccine near you'; these responses served as the outcome variable for assessing experimental effects. Ads featuring peer modeling with psychological inoculation yielded a significantly higher rate of positive responses than CDC ads (30.5 versus14.9/1000 people reached in English and 49.7 versus 31.5/1000 in Spanish; P < 0.001 for both English and Spanish rate comparisons). This provides useful pilot data supporting the hypothesis that theory-based communication, i.e. peer modeling with psychological inoculation, may be more effective than more traditional forms of advertising for promoting coronavirus vaccination.

Indexed as

CoronavirusSocial MediaAdvertisingHumansPilot ProjectsVaccination

Identifiers

PMID35048119
PMCPMC9383212
OpenAlexW4206791209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.