Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35301359›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2022

Virtual reality reduces COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the wild: a randomized trial.

Clara Vandeweerdt, Tiffany Luong, Michael Atchapero, Aske Mottelson, Christian Holz, Guido Makransky, Robert Böhm

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. [Digital innovations in vaccination communication].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Clara VandeweerdtDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. clara.vandeweerdt@ifs.ku.dk.
Tiffany LuongDepartment of Computer Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael AtchaperoDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Aske MottelsonIT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian HolzDepartment of Computer Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Guido MakranskyDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Robert BöhmDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKETH Zurich · CHIT University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

EIT Health 210836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy poses one of the largest threats to global health. Informing people about the collective benefit of vaccination has great potential in increasing vaccination intentions. This research investigates the potential for engaging experiences in immersive virtual reality (VR) to strengthen participants' understanding of community immunity, and therefore, their intention to get vaccinated. In a pre-registered lab-in-the-field intervention study, participants were recruited in a public park (tested: [Formula: see text], analyzed: [Formula: see text]). They were randomly assigned to experience the collective benefit of community immunity in a gamified immersive virtual reality environment ([Formula: see text] of sample), or to receive the same information via text and images ([Formula: see text] of sample). Before and after the intervention, participants indicated their intention to take up a hypothetical vaccine for a new COVID-19 strain (0-100 scale) and belief in vaccination as a collective responsibility (1-7 scale). The study employs a crossover design (participants later received a second treatment), but the primary outcome is the effect of the first treatment on vaccination intention. After the VR treatment, for participants with less-than-maximal vaccination intention, intention increases by 9.3 points (95% CI: 7.0 to [Formula: see text]). The text-and-image treatment raises vaccination intention by 3.3 points (difference in effects: 5.8, 95% CI: 2.0 to [Formula: see text]). The VR treatment also increases collective responsibility by 0.82 points (95% CI: 0.37 to [Formula: see text]). The results suggest that VR interventions are an effective tool for boosting vaccination intention, and that they can be applied "in the wild"-providing a complementary method for vaccine advocacy.

Indexed as

COVID-19Virtual RealityCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansVaccinationVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35301359
PMCPMC8928717
OpenAlexW4220902507

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.