Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111712›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health

Implications of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Results of Online Bulletin Board Interviews.

Jack M Gorman, Sara E Gorman, William Sandy, Nellie Gregorian, David A Scales

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jack M GormanCritica Inc., Bronx, NY, United States.
Sara E GormanCritica Inc., Bronx, NY, United States.
William SandyCritica Inc., Bronx, NY, United States.
Nellie GregorianCritica Inc., Bronx, NY, United States.
David A ScalesDepartment of Medicine, Weil Cornell Medical College, New York City, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reluctance to accept vaccination against COVID-19 poses a significant public health risk and is known to be a multi-determined phenomenon. We conducted online focus groups, or "bulletin boards," in order to probe the nature of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its implications. Participants were 94 individuals from three distinct U.S. geographical areas and represented a range of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Six themes emerged from the 3 day-long bulletin boards: the most trusted source of health information sought is the personal physician; information about health is nevertheless obtained from a wide variety of sources; stories about adverse side effects are especially "sticky"; government health institutions like CDC and FDA are not trusted; most respondents engaged in individualistic reasoning; and there is a wide spectrum of attitudes toward vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSARS-CoV-2Vaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19hesitancyonlinetrustvaccine

Identifiers

PMID35111712
PMCPMC8802137

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.