Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36848795›Full record

ArticlePublic health2023

The political component of COVID-19 vaccine choice: Results from a conjoint experiment.

Zs Papp, G B Nkansah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Zs PappCentre for Social Sciences, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: papp.zsofia@tk.hu.
G B NkansahDoctoral School of International Relations and Political Science, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrior research highlights the role of efficacy, vaccine safety, and availability in vaccine hesitancy. Research is needed to better understand the political driving forces behind COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We examine the effects of the origin of a vaccine, and approval status within the EU on vaccine choice. We also test if these effects differ by party affiliation among Hungarians. STUDY

designWe use a conjoint experimental design to assess multiple causal relationships. Respondents choose between two hypothetical vaccine profiles randomly generated from 10 attributes. The data were gathered from an online panel in September 2022. We applied a quota for vaccination status and party preference. Three hundred twenty-four respondents evaluated 3888 randomly generated vaccine profiles.

methodsWe analyse the data using an OLS estimator with standard errors clustered by respondents. To further nuance our results, we test for task, profile, and treatment heterogeneity effects.

resultsBy origin, respondents prefer German (MM 0.55; 95% CI 0.52-0.58) and Hungarian (0.55; 0.52-0.59) vaccines over US (0.49; 0.45-0.52) and Chinese vaccines (0.44; 0.41-0.47). By approval status, vaccines approved by the EU (0.55, 0.52-0.57) or pending authorization (0.5, 0.48-0.53) are preferred over unauthorised ones (0.45, 0.43-0.47). Both effects are conditional on party affiliation. Government voters especially prefer Hungarian vaccines (0.6; 0.55-0.65) over others.

conclusionsThe complexity of vaccination decisions calls for the usage of information shortcuts. Our findings demonstrate a strong political component that motivates vaccine choice. We demonstrate that politics and ideology have broken into fields of individual-level decisions such as health.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesPoliticsGovernmentHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19 vaccinesSARS-CoV-2Vaccination

Identifiers

PMID36848795
PMCPMC9868381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.