ArticleBMC public health2023
Deliberation, context, emotion and trust - understanding the dynamics of adults' COVID-19 vaccination decisions in Germany.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to shore up trust during the "cold-period" between pandemics - closing the public trust gap in pandemic preparedness frameworks.Global health action · 2026Article
- "Not Only a Matter of Personal Interest"-Vaccination Narratives and the Model of Moral Motives in China and Germany.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
- Vaccination readiness and political party preference in Germany: Trust, collective responsibility, and the populist radical right.PloS one · 2025Article
- Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in remote Alaska between November 2020 and November 2021.International journal of circumpolar health · 2023Article
- Calculation, knowledge, and identity: Dimensions of trust when making COVID-19 vaccination choices in China.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2023Article
- A Moderated Mediation Model of the Influence of Cynical Distrust, Medical Mistrust, and Anger on Vaccination Hesitancy in Nursing Staff.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2023Article
- Regional Differences in Uptake of Vaccination against COVID-19 and Influenza in Germany: Results from the DigiHero Cohort.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWillingness to vaccinate against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is vital to successful vaccination campaigns, is wavering and suboptimal. In Germany, quantitative research highlighted concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as barriers to uptake, but qualitative insights regarding individuals' decisions about COVID-19 vaccines and how personal perceptions reflect or refute existing behavioral theories are lacking.
methodsTo identify how individuals make COVID-19 vaccination decisions within real-life contexts, we conducted 33 semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals in Germany between March and April 2021 using maximum variation sampling, focusing on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines. Analysis, informed by a framework approach, began in the field via debriefings and was amplified upon the conclusion of data collection.
resultsFour interconnected themes (deliberation, context, emotion, trust) shaped respondents' decisions about vaccination. Personal deliberation regarding benefits and risks of vaccines and perceptions of the broader social and political context sparked a spectrum of emotions that underpinned vaccination decisions. Trust in science and researchers emerged as a powerful protective factor facilitating the decision to get vaccinated even amidst a rapidly changing context and disconcerting information.
conclusionsOur findings add to ongoing debates about the breadth of vaccination decisions by highlighting how respondents are influenced by their perceptions of the political context and the emotional heft of their decisions. The role of cognitive evaluation, context, and emotions mirrors other decision-making frameworks, particularly the Risk as Feelings Theory. We extend on the elements of this theory by highlighting trust as a protective factor when making decisions particularly in highly uncertain contexts. Success of vaccination campaigns, more important than ever as new variants of COVID-19 emerge, is interwoven with an ability to bolster trust in science. Communicating public-health decisions and information about vaccines transparently without instilling fear offers promising chances to strengthen public trust in COVID-19 vaccines.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00024505 ).
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.