Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36794338›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2023

COVID-19 vaccine literacy: A scoping review.

Luigi Roberto Biasio, Patrizio Zanobini, Chiara Lorini, Pietro Monaci, Alice Fanfani, Veronica Gallinoro, Gabriele Cerini, Giuseppe Albora, Marco Del Riccio, Sergio Pecorelli and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The still unexplored mediating role of vaccine literacy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Luigi Roberto BiasioScientific Advisory Committee, Giovanni Lorenzini Foundation, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8932-0411
Patrizio ZanobiniDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8202-2937
Chiara LoriniDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-1857
Pietro MonaciMedical Specialization School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Alice FanfaniMedical Specialization School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Veronica GallinoroMedical Specialization School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Gabriele CeriniMedical Specialization School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Giuseppe AlboraMedical Specialization School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marco Del RiccioDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2742-0297
Sergio PecorelliScientific Advisory Committee, Giovanni Lorenzini Foundation, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5126-4300
Guglielmo BonaccorsiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5171-4308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To address vaccine hesitancy, specific self-rated tools have been developed to assess vaccine literacy (VL) related to COVID-19, including additional variables, such as beliefs, behavior, and willingness to be vaccinated. To explore the recent literature a search was performed selecting articles published between January 2020 and October 2022: 26 papers were identified using these tools in the context of COVID-19. Descriptive analysis showed that the levels of VL observed in the studies were generally in agreement, with functional VL score often lower than the interactive-critical dimension, as if the latter was stimulated by the COVID-19-related infodemic. Factors associated with VL included vaccination status, age, educational level, and, possibly, gender. Effective communication based on VL when promoting vaccination is critical to sustaining immunization against COVID-19 and other communicable diseases. The VL scales developed to date have shown good consistency. However, further research is needed to improve these tools and develop new ones.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesEducational StatusHumansLiteracyVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19health literacyvaccine hesitancyVaccine literacyvaccine uptake

Identifiers

PMID36794338
PMCPMC10026896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.