Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36400913›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Partisanship and Covid-19 vaccination in the UK.

Margaryta Klymak, Tim Vlandas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Margaryta KlymakSomerville College, University of Oxford, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6HD, UK.
Tim VlandasDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2ER, UK. tim.vlandas@spi.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article examines the association between partisanship and vaccination in the UK. The lower vaccination rates among Republicans in the US have been linked to ideology and President Trump's anti-vaccination rhetoric. By contrast, both ruling and opposition parties in the UK promoted the national vaccination program. Using two datasets at constituency and individual levels, we analyse whether there are partisan differences in uptake when vaccination garners cross-party support. Our findings contrast in important ways from the US case. First, the correlation between partisanship and vaccination is the opposite to that of the US: both Conservative constituencies and individuals are associated with higher vaccination rates than Labour across almost all age groups. Thus, right-leaning individuals do not necessarily vaccinate less, at least when their political party is in power and supportive of vaccination. Second, partisanship alone accounts for a large share of variation in vaccination rates, but this association appears largely driven by socio-economic and demographic differences: older and economically better off individuals and constituencies tend to be more vaccinated. Once these controls are included, the correlation between Conservative partisanship and vaccination shrinks substantially. Hence, the ideological source of the partisan gap in vaccination rates appears smaller than in the US.

Indexed as

COVID-19PoliticsCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansUnited KingdomVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36400913
PMCPMC9672584

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.