Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36146480›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

"I Would Never Push a Vaccine on You": A Qualitative Study of Social Norms and Pressure in Vaccine Behavior in the U.S.

Cheryl Lin, Taylor Parker, Kartik Pejavara, Danielle Smith, Rungting Tu, Pikuei Tu

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 'Is It Safe? Is it not?' A Youth-Led Photovoice Study of Youth Perspectives of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cheryl LinPolicy and Organizational Management Program, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Taylor ParkerPolicy and Organizational Management Program, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4691-8135
Kartik PejavaraPolicy and Organizational Management Program, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Danielle SmithPolicy and Organizational Management Program, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Rungting TuDepartment of Business Administration, Tunghai University, Taichung 407224, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-0963-4224
Pikuei TuPolicy and Organizational Management Program, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Duke University · USTunghai University · TW

Funding

Duke University Bass Connections N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous researchers have established the influence of social norms on vaccine behavior. However, little work has been performed contextualizing individuals' experience with these social factors and how they operate to persuade individuals' acceptance or refusal of a vaccine. We aimed to determine the mechanisms of familial and societal pressure or expectations that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making. We conducted four focus groups and eleven individual interviews (total n = 32) with participants from across the U.S. of different vaccination statuses. We identified three emergent themes: (1) Altruistic reasoning was particularly prevalent among initially hesitant late adopters-the desire to protect loved ones and others constituted a dominant motive, more powerful than protecting oneself. Vaccination was also reckoned as part of a joint effort to return to normal life; hence, it invoked a sense of responsibility or "obligation"; (2) expectation often became pressure; although most vaccinated participants stated that they respected others' choices, late adopters or unvaccinated participants perceived differently and felt rushed or "forced" into choosing, and many resented being "targeted" or "bullied"; (3) vaccination status became a new label, frequently dividing families, thus producing familial mandates, exclusions, or social stratifications. This caused sadness and feelings of isolation, along with the formation of a camaraderie among the excluded unvaccinated. A vaccine decision builds from the complexities of individuals' experiences and cultures. The vaccinated were not free of hesitancy nor were the unvaccinated all anti-vaxxers. Vigorous vaccine promotion successfully converted some undecided individuals but also fostered distrust of government; alarmingly, the push to receive the COVID-19 vaccine further triggered doubts about established vaccines. Communication strategies need to be developed and implemented carefully so as not to ostracize the unvaccinated community and strengthen their resistance.

Indexed as

adoptionattitudesdecision sciencehealth behaviorimmunizationperceptionspublic healthSARS-CoV-2social factorsvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36146480
PMCPMC9502292
OpenAlexW4293723490

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.