Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36366341›Full record

ReviewVaccines2022

The Association of Health Literacy with Intention to Vaccinate and Vaccination Status: A Systematic Review.

Leonardo Maria Siena, Claudia Isonne, Antonio Sciurti, Maria Roberta De Blasiis, Giuseppe Migliara, Carolina Marzuillo, Corrado De Vito, Paolo Villari, Valentina Baccolini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  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

9 authors.

Leonardo Maria SienaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2903-0719
Claudia IsonneDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1002-9133
Antonio SciurtiDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Maria Roberta De BlasiisDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe MigliaraDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4573-6025
Carolina MarzuilloDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7299-5727
Corrado De VitoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Paolo VillariDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Valentina BaccoliniDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7873-7817

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite health literacy (HL) being recognized as a driver of health-promoting behavior, its influence on the vaccination decision-making process remains unclear. This study summarized current evidence on the association between HL and both intention to vaccinate and vaccination status. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, retrieving observational studies published until January 2022 that used HL-validated tools to investigate the above associations for any vaccine. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Twenty-one articles were included; of these, six investigated the intention to vaccinate and the remainder vaccination status. Articles on intention looked at SARS-CoV-2 vaccination using heterogeneous HL tools and were of high/fair quality. Vaccination status, mainly for influenza or pneumococcal vaccines, was explored using various HL tools; the quality was generally high. We found inconsistent results across and within vaccine types, with no clear conclusion for either vaccination intention or status. A weak but positive association was reported between a high HL level and influenza vaccination uptake for individuals aged more than 65 years. HL did not seem to significantly influence behavior towards vaccination. Differences in the methods used might explain these results. Further research is needed to investigate the role of HL in the vaccination decision-making process.

Indexed as

health literacysystematic reviewvaccinationvaccine

Identifiers

PMID36366341
PMCPMC9692286

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.