ArticleInternational journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR2023
Trust in scientists on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccine intention in China and the US.
Article in International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Italian Validation of the Trust in Medical Researchers-Short Scale: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Does the messenger make the difference? Perceived reliability of health information sources during the COVID-19 pandemic in multi-ethnic Malaysia.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Understanding public confidence in locally-produced mRNA vaccines: Insights for future pandemic preparedness.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Understanding the drivers and barriers of elderly vaccination in post-pandemic China: a qualitative study in Shenzhen.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Can ChatGPT Counter Vaccine Hesitancy? An Evaluation of ChatGPT's Responses to Simulated Queries from the General Public.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to predict COVID-19 vaccination intention: A structural equational modeling approach.Heliyon · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When we recognize various factors which influence vaccine willingness, it is unclear whether these factors work the same in different countries. This study explored how trust in scientists was related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancies and vaccine willingness in China and the U.S. We attempted to understand the extent to which the perceived trustworthiness of scientists would predict vaccine hesitancies and intention to get vaccinated differently in these two countries. An online survey with participants in China (N = 391) and in the U.S. (N = 363) was conducted. Participants were asked about their view of scientists' competence, benevolence, and integrity as dimensions of trustworthiness, three types of vaccine hesitancies, as well as their willingness to get vaccinated. The results showed that trust in scientists was negatively related to individual vaccine hesitancy in both China and the U.S., and trust was negatively associated with the level of contextual hesitancy and vaccine-specific hesitancy in the U.S. Higher trust in scientists was also associated with the willingness to get vaccines in the U.S., rather than in China. Results yielded differences in China and the U.S. in how trust in scientists and vaccine hesitancies predicted individuals' willingness to get vaccinated.
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.