ArticleVaccine: X2022
Understandings and practices related to risk, immunity and vaccination during the Delta variant COVID-19 outbreak in Australia: An interview study.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Health-Related Factors in the Prevalence and Severity of COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on Sabzevar Persian Cohort Data.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Bounded risk disposition explains Turing patterns and tipping points during spatial contagions.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: ambiguity in decision-making.Health promotion international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to use indepth social research to better understand the relationships and intersections between understandings and practices of COVID-19 risk, immunity and vaccination in lay people's accounts. Methods: This article reports findings from a qualitative research project involving semi-structured telephone interviews with a diverse group of 40 adults from around Australia about their experiences of the COVID crisis, conducted in late 2021 during the Delta variant outbreak. The participants' responses to questions about COVID risk, COVID vaccines and how they thought they could best protect their health were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results: A notion of 'communal risk' was expressed together with 'individual risk'. Relatedly, people's understandings of what might be characterised as 'communal immunity' as well as individual immunity also dominated in their accounts. Both communal risk and communal immunity are influenced by a range of constantly changing and interrelated factors. Locale was a strong factor in shaping people's experiences and stances related to COVID risk. The participants referred to aspects such as their community's geographical location; the number of COVID cases and the level of COVID vaccination by others living in their state or territory; adoption of preventive measures; vaccine availability, scheduling and take-up; viral testing and tracing reporting; and the extent and timing of viral spread in the population. These factors were continually related back to highly specific conditions and practices in their community or state of residence. Conclusions: Understandings and practices related to COVID risk, immunity and vaccination were based both on individual experiences and broader ideas about the role of community. Spatial contexts are influential but there is also a strong temporality to these understandings and practices. There is a fine balance to be maintained between individual-level protection from COVID risk and community-level actions.
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.