ArticlePloS one2022
Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06076421 (Do Evidence-based Fact Boxes Improve Informed Decision-making About COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination in More and Less Disadvantaged Groups Equally? - Study Protocol for a Multi-center Cluster RCT in Health and Social Care in Germany), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Do Evidence-based Fact Boxes Improve Informed Decision-making About COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination in More and Less Disadvantaged Groups Equally? - Study Protocol for a Multi-center Cluster RCT in Health and Social Care in Germany
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Vaccination Intention Following Receipt of Vaccine Information Through Interactive Simulation vs Text Among COVID-19 Vaccine-Hesitant Adults During the Omicron Wave in Germany.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- 5C psychological antecedents of vaccine hesitancy toward maternal RSV vaccines and infant monoclonal antibodies among pregnant and postpartum women and their partners in China: A multicenter, dyadic survey design, cross-sectional study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- [Enlightenment through official vaccination communication: an experimental study comparing evidence-based fact boxes with nudges and advertising].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- Explaining seasonality increases perceived effectiveness of influenza vaccination: An experimental study.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- Determinants of vaccination uptake among pregnant women in Kumasi: A multi-centre cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring pre-pandemic patterns of vaccine decision-making with the 5C model: results from representative surveys in 2016 and 2018.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines.
methodsWe conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison).
resultsStudy 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds.
conclusionFact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.
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.