Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36269739›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Shared understandings of vaccine hesitancy: How perceived risk and trust in vaccination frame individuals' vaccine acceptance.

Mauro Martinelli, Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors.

Mauro MartinelliDepartment of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6178-779X
Giuseppe Alessandro VeltriDepartment of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9472-2236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extensive research has framed vaccine hesitancy as a property of a heterogeneous group of individuals, ranging from total acceptance to complete refusal. Nevertheless, not much research has explored this heterogeneity, mainly focusing on central tendencies of single belief-related items. Using data from an original survey on a sample of Italian citizens, this paper examines this heterogeneity, exploiting individuals' cognitive variation to map clusters of individuals who share similar cognitive schemas on vaccine uptake. The results showed the existence three groups, characterized by a different articulation of predictors of vaccine hesitancy, revealing different understandings of vaccine uptake. We then analyzed within-cluster characteristics and showed that cognitive segmentation was connected to different levels of perceived risk, confidence, and support for vaccination. We further showed that cognitive clustering also entailed a mean of social stratification that was correlated with individuals' educational levels, and that the predictors of vaccine hesitancy were articulated differently in each group. This study, adopting a recent perspective in the analysis of systems of beliefs, moves one step further in disentangling the complexity of vaccine acceptance. Results suggested the usefulness of including individuals' cognitive characteristics in vaccine hesitancy research and in the development of interventions addressed at increasing vaccine acceptance.

Indexed as

TrustVaccinesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationVaccination HesitancyVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36269739
PMCPMC9586382

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.