ReviewF1000Research2022
Vaccine Hesitancy in Japan: From a Perspective on Medical Uncertainty and Trans-Scientific Theory.
Review in F1000Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-related quality of life and adverse events during 14 days after receiving a live-attenuated influenza vaccine in Japanese children 4-15 years of age.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Vaccination Education Deficits and Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Students in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2024Article
- How can we promote vaccination of the mass population?-Lessons from the COVID-19 vaccination defaults.PloS one · 2024Article
- Addressing Unmet Needs in Vaccination for Older Adults in the Asia Pacific: Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development and dissemination of vaccines has made immunization possible and has led to the successful control and eradication of various infectious diseases in many parts of the world. However, even when vaccines that are said to be "effective" are offered, a certain number of people do not receive them, and this has become a problem known as "vaccine hesitancy". ItThe reason of "Vaccine hesitancy" is pointed out that there is not only because of the risk of contracting infectious diseases if they are not vaccinated, but also because of the lack of a collective immunity system. Vaccines are an effective means of acquiring immunity, but no matter how highly effective vaccines are developed, if the vaccination rate does not exceed a certain number, "herd immunity", which means that the risk of person-to-person transmission is reduced when a significant portion of the population becomes immune to, cannot be acquired. Therefore, how to increase the vaccination rate of the population is a major public health challenge. This paper reviews previous studies on "vaccine hesitancy" in Japan and analyzes people's hesitancy in terms of negative "rumors" about vaccines, risk perception of vaccine side effects, and sense of burden when receiving vaccinations. Then, the author will examine that the background of "vaccine hesitancy" is not only distrust of vaccines and risk perception of side effects, but also distrust of those who provide and promote vaccinations, such as medical professionals, government, and public administration. By using medical uncertainty which shows there are many unknowns and uncertainties in medicine and trans-scientific theory which indicates there are areas that science cannot answer this paper argues that the problem of "vaccine hesitancy" can be reduced if medical professionals and governments show sincere empathy and attitude toward victims of adverse vaccine reactions and those who hesitate to vaccinate.
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.