ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2023
Rethinking the frontiers of vaccine acceptance: Impact of visual messages in promoting the actual intake of COVID-19 vaccines among vulnerable populations.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spreading of misinformation on mass media and digital platforms regarding vaccines. A systematic scoping review on stakeholders, policymakers, and sentiments/behavior of Italian consumers.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies on COVID-19 vaccine mainly focused on behavior intention and rarely on actual intake. This study attempted to fill this gap by assessing the impact of visual artistic messages on COVID-19 vaccination among victims of insecurity. The study was a quasi-experiment involving 362 victims of insecurity. There were two groups in the quasi experiment known as control and treatment groups. The former did not receive the intervention while the latter did. The results of the study revealed that vaccination among the participants in the visual intervention improved from 12% before the visual intervention to 74% after the intervention and 95% after 6 months of follow-up assessment. On the contrary, COVID-19 vaccination for the no visual intervention only slightly improved from 13% to 18% and 19%, respectively, within the same time framework. The study expands the argument on security discourse by highlighting the need to consider the health welfare of victims of armed conflict as part of the larger security discourse. Doing so will not only improves existing literature but also provides the needed empirical data that will guide policies and program on security issues. Theoretically, the study has offered fresh understanding regarding variables from the health belief model, such as perceived severity and perceived vulnerability.
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.