Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36562048›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

COVID-19 vaccination motivation and underlying believing processes: A comparison study between individuals with affective disorder and healthy controls.

Nina Dalkner, Eva Fleischmann, Frederike T Fellendorf, Jolana Wagner-Skacel, Elena M D Schönthaler, Susanne Bengesser, Alfred Häussl, Sophie Tietz, Adelina Tmava-Berisha, Melanie Lenger and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nina DalknerClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Eva FleischmannClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Frederike T FellendorfClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Jolana Wagner-SkacelClinical Department of Medical Psychology, Psychosomatic, and Psychotherapy, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Elena M D SchönthalerClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Susanne BengesserClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Alfred HäusslClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sophie TietzClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Adelina Tmava-BerishaClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Melanie LengerClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Eva Z ReininghausClinical Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Medical University of Graz · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Believing processes represent fundamental brain functions between cognition and emotion. Shortly before the introduction of a compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 in Austria, motives and underlying believing processes regarding the vaccination were collected in individuals with affective disorder (AD) and healthy controls (HC). Methods: 79 individuals with AD and 173 HC were surveyed online to assess believing processes with the parameters of the credition model (narratives, certainty, emotion, mightiness) about (1) the coronavirus itself and (2) why someone is vaccinated or not. In addition, we calculated congruence scores between content of narrative and type of emotion and divided the narrative content into positive, negative, and indifferent. Results: There were no differences in vaccination status between AD and HC. Higher levels of certainty were observed in HC compared to AD in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The effects were higher when asked about the motivation to vaccinate or not than about the coronavirus itself. In HC, more positive emotions and more congruence between emotions and narratives were reported during believing in their vaccination motives. No group differences were found in mightiness for both items. Independently from diagnosis, unvaccinated people had high levels of certainty and more negative emotions and narratives while believing in their motives for not getting vaccinated. Conclusion: When believing about the COVID-19 vaccination, individuals with AD were more uncertain and experienced fewer positive emotions than HC, although both groups did not differ in vaccination status. These effects were not that strong when believing about the coronavirus in general.

Indexed as

affective disordercognitionCOVID-19 vaccinationcreditionemotion

Identifiers

PMID36562048
PMCPMC9765308
OpenAlexW4311646590

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.