Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35632427›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

Exploring the Association between Misinformation Endorsement, Opinions on the Government Response, Risk Perception, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the US, Canada, and Italy.

Elena Savoia, Nigel Walsh Harriman, Rachael Piltch-Loeb, Marco Bonetti, Veronica Toffolutti, Marcia A Testa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.8field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  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
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Elena SavoiaEmergency Preparedness Research, Evaluation & Practice Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Nigel Walsh HarrimanEmergency Preparedness Research, Evaluation & Practice Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Rachael Piltch-LoebEmergency Preparedness Research, Evaluation & Practice Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Marco BonettiCarlo F. Dondena Research Center and Covid Crisis Lab, Bocconi University, 20136 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2304-4180
Veronica ToffoluttiCentre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation (CHEPI), Department of Economics & Public Policy, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Marcia A TestaEmergency Preparedness Research, Evaluation & Practice Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Harvard University · USBocconi University · ITImperial College London · GB

Funding

IRIS Research Coalition 100683EPID
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the adverse consequences created by an infodemic, specifically bringing attention to compliance with public health guidance and vaccine uptake. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a complex construct that is related to health beliefs, misinformation exposure, and perceptions of governmental institutions. This study draws on theoretical models and current data on the COVID-19 infodemic to explore the association between the perceived risk of COVID-19, level of misinformation endorsement, and opinions about the government response on vaccine uptake. We surveyed a sample of 2697 respondents from the US, Canada, and Italy using a mobile platform between 21-28 May 2021. Using multivariate regression, we found that country of residence, risk perception of contracting and spreading COVID-19, perception of government response and transparency, and misinformation endorsement were associated with the odds of vaccine hesitancy. Higher perceived risk was associated with lower odds of hesitancy, while lower perceptions of government response and higher misinformation endorsement were associated with higher hesitancy.

Indexed as

communicationCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancygovernment actionsmisinformation

Identifiers

PMID35632427
PMCPMC9147457
OpenAlexW4224314790

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.