Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35507554›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Which vaccine attributes foster vaccine uptake? A cross-country conjoint experiment.

Sabrina Stöckli, Anna Katharina Spälti, Joseph Phillips, Florian Stoeckel, Matthew Barnfield, Jack Thompson, Benjamin Lyons, Vittorio Mérola, Paula Szewach, Jason Reifler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabrina StöckliDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8322-2906
Anna Katharina SpältiDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Joseph PhillipsSchool of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0084-4601
Florian StoeckelDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8937-5962
Matthew BarnfieldDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1237-9594
Jack ThompsonDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Benjamin LyonsDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Vittorio MérolaDepartment of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, United States of America.
Paula SzewachDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Jason ReiflerDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
University of Exeter · GBStony Brook University · USUniversity of Kent · GBUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Why do people prefer one particular COVID-19 vaccine over another? We conducted a pre-registered conjoint experiment (n = 5,432) in France, Germany, and Sweden in which respondents rated the favorability of and chose between pairs of hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines. Differences in effectiveness and the prevalence of side-effects had the largest effects on vaccine preferences. Factors with smaller effects include country of origin (respondents are less favorable to vaccines of Chinese and Russian origin), and vaccine technology (respondents exhibited a small preference for hypothetical mRNA vaccines). The general public also exhibits sensitivity to additional factors (e.g. how expensive the vaccines are). Our data show that vaccine attributes are more important for vaccine preferences among those with higher vaccine favorability and higher risk tolerance. In our conjoint design, vaccine attributes-including effectiveness and side-effect prevalence-appear to have more muted effects among the most vaccine hesitant respondents. The prevalence of side-effects, effectiveness, country of origin and vaccine technology (e.g., mRNA vaccines) determine vaccine acceptance, but they matter little among the vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitant people do not find a vaccine more attractive even if it has the most favorable attributes. While the communication of vaccine attributes is important, it is unlikely to convince those who are most vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated.

Indexed as

COVID-19Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsVaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesGermanyHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID35507554
PMCPMC9067644
OpenAlexW4229024511

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.