ArticleVaccine2022
Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement.
Article in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in the WHO European Region and in North America (United States and Canada): A Systematic Review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of Trust in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Considerations from a Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of intensive health education on influenza vaccination and acute exacerbations in outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a real-world study.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Exploring longitudinal trends and multifactorial correlations of COVID-19 vaccination willingness among healthcare workers in China: a two-phase cross-sectional study before and after the 2023 phase of COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Article
- A survey of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 23 countries in 2022.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- Vaccine Hesitancy in Japan: From a Perspective on Medical Uncertainty and Trans-Scientific Theory.F1000Research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientists and medical experts are among the professionals trusted the most. Are they also the most suitable figures to convince the general public to get vaccinated? In a pre-registered experiment, we tested whether expert endorsement increases the effectiveness of debunking messages about COVID-19 vaccines. We monitored a sample of 2,277 people in Italy through a longitudinal study along the salient phases of the vaccination campaign. Participants received a series of messages endorsed by either medical researchers (experimental group) or by generic others (control). In order to minimise demand effects, we collected participants' responses always at ten days from the last debunking message. Whereas we did not find an increase in vaccination behaviour, we found that participants in the experimental group displayed higher intention to vaccinate, as well as more positive beliefs about the protectiveness of vaccines. The more debunking messages the participants received, the greater the increase in vaccination intention in the experimental group compared to control. This suggests that multiple exposure is critical for the effectiveness of expert-endorsed debunking messages. In addition, these effects are significant regardless of participants' trust toward science. Our results suggest that scientist and medical experts are not simply a generally trustworthy category but also a well suited messenger in contrasting disinformation during vaccination campaigns.
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.