Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36411132›Full record

ArticleVaccine2023

Misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Tara Zimmerman, Kristina Shiroma, Kenneth R Fleischmann, Bo Xie, Chenyan Jia, Nitin Verma, Min Kyung Lee

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
48.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Perceptions About Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccines Among People With CKD: Findings From the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tara ZimmermanTexas Woman's University, Denton, TX, USA. Electronic address: tzimmerman1@twu.edu.
Kristina ShiromaUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Kenneth R FleischmannUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Bo XieUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Chenyan JiaStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Nitin VermaUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Min Kyung LeeUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
The University of Texas at Austin · USStanford University · USTexas Woman's University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has emerged as a major public health challenge. Although medical and scientific misinformation has been known to fuel vaccine hesitancy in the past, misinformation surrounding COVID-19 seems to be rampant, and increasing evidence suggests that it is contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy today. The relationship between misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is complex, however, and it is relatively understudied.

methodsIn this article, we report qualitative data from two related but distinct studies from a larger project. Study 1 included semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted in October-November 2020 via phone with 30 participants to investigate the relationship between misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Study 1's results then informed the design of open-ended questions for Study 2, an online survey conducted in May-June 2021 to consider the relationship between misinformation and vaccine hesitancy further. The data were examined with thematic analysis.

resultsStudy 1 led to the identification of positive and negative themes related to attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. In Study 2, responses from vaccine-hesitant participants included six categories of misinformation: medical, scientific, political, media, religious, and technological. Across both Study 1 and Study 2, six vaccine hesitancy themes were identified from the data: concerns about the vaccines' future effects, doubts about the vaccines' effectiveness, commercial profiteering, preference for natural immunity, personal freedom, and COVID-19 denial.

conclusionsThe relationship between misinformation and vaccine hesitancy is complicated. Various types of misinformation exist, with each related to a specific type of vaccine hesitancy-related attitude. Personal freedom and COVID-19 denial are vaccine attitudes of particular interest, representing important yet understudied phenomena. Medical and scientific approaches may not be sufficient to combat misinformation based in religion, media, or politics; and public health officials may benefit from partnering with experts from those fields to address harmful misinformation that is driving COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCommunicationCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPoliticsTelephoneVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19DisinformationInterviewsMisinformationSurveysVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36411132
PMCPMC9659512
OpenAlexW4308992344

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.