Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36521276›Full record

Trial reportPublic health2023

Public misperceptions of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and waning: experimental evidence from Ireland.

P D Lunn, S Timmons

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

P D LunnEconomic and Social Research Institute & Department of Economics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, ESRI, Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland. Electronic address: pete.lunn@esri.ie.
S TimmonsEconomic and Social Research Institute & Department of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: shane.timmons@esri.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe study set out to measure public understanding of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and how effectiveness wanes with time since vaccination. Because perceived VE is a strong predictor of vaccine uptake, measuring perceptions can inform public health policy and communications. STUDY

designOnline randomised experiment.

methodsThe study was undertaken in Ireland, which has high vaccination rates. A nationally representative sample (n = 2000) responded to a scenario designed to measure perceptions of COVID-19 VE against mortality. The length of time since vaccination in the scenario was randomly varied across four treatment arms (2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months).

resultsThe public underestimates VE, with substantial variation in perceptions. A majority (57%) gave responses implying perceived VE against mortality of 0-85%, i.e., below scientific estimates. Among this group, mean perceived VE was just 49%. Over a quarter (26%) gave responses implying perceived VE greater than 95%, i.e., above scientific estimates. Comparing the four treatment groups, responses took no account of vaccine waning. Perceived VE was actually higher 9 months after vaccination than 2 weeks after vaccination.

conclusionDespite high vaccination rates, most of the public in Ireland underestimates VE. Furthermore, the general public has not absorbed the concept of vaccine waning in the months following vaccination. Both misperceptions may reduce vaccine uptake, unless public health authorities act to correct them through improved communication.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansIrelandVaccinationVaccine EfficacyCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19Public perceptionVaccinationVaccine effectivenessVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36521276
PMCPMC9650565

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.