ArticleSouth African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care2022
A values-driven approach to vaccine hesitancy conversations.
Article in South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Same principles, different decisions": A qualitative study exploring the attitudes of COVID-19 vaccination among school staff in Switzerland.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Addressing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy With Community Distribution of Conversation Cards.American journal of public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
South Africa recently experienced the third wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)pandemic. Social media is flooded with polarised conversations, with opinions for and against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. Many people are hesitant, and some are strongly opposed to vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy must be understood in historical, political and socio-cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to offer a values-driven approach to vaccine hesitancy conversations. It focusses on ethical dilemmas forthcoming from values violations, interrogating the personal and institutional scripts and rationalisations that prevent resolution, and offering ways of re-scripting these. Values-driven conversations provide safe spaces for vaccine-hesitant individuals to voice their reservations. The manner in which conversations are conducted is as important as the contents being discussed. Healthcare professionals are trusted by the public and should use ways of conversing that do not erode this trust. Creating respectful, compassionate platforms of engagement and incentivising vaccination are important measures for change in vaccine perspectives.
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.