ArticleVaccines2022
Strengthening the Link between Vaccine Predispositions and Vaccine Advocacy through Certainty.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Vaccine Advocacy Scale for Childhood Vaccines and Psychometric Evaluation: A Methodological Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- The association of the persecutory ideation questionnaire with clinically-relevant and other outcomes: the moderating role of confidence.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- How does collectivism help deal with perceived vaccine artificiality? The case of COVID-19 vaccination intent in European young adults.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInstruments designed to assess individual differences in predispositions towards vaccination are useful in predicting vaccination-related outcomes. Despite their importance, there is relatively little evidence regarding the conditions under which these instruments are more predictive. The current research was designed to improve the ability of these kinds of instruments to predict vaccination advocacy by considering the certainty associated with the responses to vaccination scales.
methodAcross two studies, participants completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire BMQ scale (Study 1) or the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale (Study 2). The certainty participants had in their responses to each scale was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). Intentions to advocate in favor of vaccination served as the criterion measure in both studies.
resultsAs expected, the scales significantly predicted vaccination advocacy, contributing to enhancing the predictive validity of the instruments used in the studies. Most relevant, certainty moderated the extent to which these scales predicted vaccination advocacy, with greater consistency between the initial scores and the subsequent advocacy willingness obtained for those with higher certainty.
conclusionsCertainty can be useful to predict when the relationship between vaccination-related cognitions (i.e., beliefs or attitudes) and advocacy willingness is likely to be stronger.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.