Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35891293›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Intention: Evidence from Chile, Mexico, and Colombia.

Camila Salazar-Fernández, María José Baeza-Rivera, Marcoantonio Villanueva, Joaquín Alberto Padilla Bautista, Regina M Navarro, Mariana Pino

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Camila Salazar-FernándezDepartamento de Análisis de Datos, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Temuco 4813302, Chile.
María José Baeza-RiveraLaboratorio de Interacciones, Cultura y Salud, Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco 4810101, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-7763-0148
Marcoantonio VillanuevaPrograma de Doctorado en Psicología, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile.
Joaquín Alberto Padilla BautistaFacultad de Ingeniería y Negocios Guadalupe Victoria, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexicali 21289, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-2159-7286
Regina M NavarroCEPEC, Centro de Excelencia en Psicología Económica, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile.
Mariana PinoPrograma de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma del Caribe, Barranquilla 080020, Colombia.
Universidad de La Frontera · CLUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California · MXUniversidad Autónoma de Chile · CLUniversidad Autónoma del Caribe · COUniversidad Católica de Temuco · CL

Funding

Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo 11181020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Although the evidence is consistent that vaccines for COVID-19 effectively prevent severe illness or death, the rapid development of vaccines has led to increased beliefs about possible negative consequences and conspiracy theories about the vaccine. Several factors influence whether or not people decide to be vaccinated. Some studies suggest that our perception of what significant others do and think influences our behavior. (2) Methods: This study evaluates the predictive role of beliefs about negative consequences of the COVID-19 vaccine, conspiracy beliefs about this vaccine, and social influence on the intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 in three Latin American and Caribbean countries: Chile, Mexico, and Colombia. Using convenience sampling, 2075 adults from Chile (48.3%), Mexico (27.6%), and Colombia (24.6%) participated by answering an online questionnaire with variables of interest. (3) Results: Despite the differences between countries, the results showed that the proposed model is invariant and explains between 56-66% of the COVID-19 vaccination intent. Specifically, controlling for age, socioeconomic status, political orientation, and educational level, we found that beliefs about the negative consequences of the COVID-19 vaccine were the main predictor followed by social influence. Beliefs in conspiracy theories did not predict vaccination intention (4) Conclusions: Considering these variables in campaigns to boost vaccination intention is discussed.

Indexed as

conspiracy theoriescoronavirussocial influencevaccination behaviorvaccine behaviorvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID35891293
PMCPMC9318622
OpenAlexW4285733956

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.