Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36404766›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2023

Different Interventions for COVID-19 Primary and Booster Vaccination? Effects of Psychological Factors and Health Policies on Vaccine Uptake.

Philipp Sprengholz, Luca Henkel, Robert Böhm, Cornelia Betsch

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Philipp SprengholzMedia and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9925-1920
Luca HenkelDepartment of Economics, University of Bonn, Germany.
Robert BöhmFaculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6806-0374
Cornelia BetschMedia and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Germany.
University of Erfurt · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic requires continued uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. To increase vaccination intention and uptake, key determinants of primary and booster vaccination need to be understood and potential effects of vaccination policies examined.

designUsing experimental data collected in Germany in February 2022 (

resultsCompared with unvaccinated participants, those with primary vaccination were less complacent, more often understood the collective protection afforded by vaccination, and less often endorsed conspiracy-based misinformation. Compared with participants with primary vaccination, boosted individuals were even less complacent, exhibited fewer conspiracy-based beliefs, perceived fewer constraints by prioritizing vaccination over other things, and more often favored compliance with official vaccination recommendations. Support for and reactance about vaccination mandates depended on vaccination status rather than policy characteristics, regardless of mandate type or incentives (up to 500 EUR). While unvaccinated individuals rejected policy provisions and declined vaccination, boosted individuals indicated mid-level support for mandates and showed high vaccination intention. Among vaccinated individuals, higher incentives of up to 2000 EUR had a considerable positive effect on the willingness to get boosted, especially in the absence of a mandate.

conclusionsWhile mandates may be needed to increase primary vaccination, our results indicate that financial incentives could be an alternative to promote booster uptake. However, combining both measures for the same target group seems inadvisable in most cases. HIGHLIGHTS: Unvaccinated individuals and people with primary and booster vaccinations differ on psychological dimensions, calling for tailored immunization campaigns.Vaccination intentions depend on vaccination status rather than on mandatory or incentivizing policies.Incentives are unlikely to persuade unvaccinated individuals but may increase booster uptake.Positive effects of incentives decrease when vaccination is mandatory, advising against combination.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesHealth PolicyHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesboosterCOVID-19incentivesmandatesvaccination

Identifiers

PMID36404766
PMCPMC9679322
OpenAlexW4309518733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.