Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35750542›Full record

ArticleVaccine2022

Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement.

Piero Ronzani, Folco Panizza, Carlo Martini, Lucia Savadori, Matteo Motterlini

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Role of Trust in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Considerations from a Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Piero RonzaniInternational Security and Development Center, Berlin, Germany; Centre for Applied and Experimental Epistemology, Department of Philosophy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: ronzani@isdc.org.
Folco PanizzaCentre for Applied and Experimental Epistemology, Department of Philosophy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; Molecular Mind Laboratory, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Italy.
Carlo MartiniCentre for Applied and Experimental Epistemology, Department of Philosophy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; Centre for Philosophy of Social Science, Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Lucia SavadoriCognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Matteo MotterliniCentre for Applied and Experimental Epistemology, Department of Philosophy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITInternational Security and Development Center · DEUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Trento · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansIntentionLongitudinal StudiesVaccinationVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19Expert endorsementVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID35750542
PMCPMC9217084
OpenAlexW4283275251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.