ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
Reducing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy From a Decisional Conflict Model: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parental vaccine hesitancy toward routine childhood immunizations and COVID-19 vaccines in Japan: A cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major concern in this pandemic context. This study postulates that vaccine hesitancy among individuals might be associated with a high state of decisional conflict which indicates a state of delayed decision-making. This study aimed to identify the factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and examine the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and decisional conflict by focusing on 3 sub-factors: value, informed, and support. This cross-sectional study administered an online, self-administered survey to people aged over 20 years old who were living in Japan using an online self-administered survey. To clarify the association between hesitancy and decisional conflict for the first or second vaccination, this study compared the hesitant and non-hesitant groups. Multivariate analysis was conducted to determine which sub-factor contributing to decisional conflict was associated with vaccine hesitancy. A total of 527 responses were included in the analyses. For the first vaccination (n = 527), women and individuals in their 30s were more hesitant. For the second vaccination (n = 485), women, and individuals in their 40s, non-medical individuals, and individuals without any past history were more hesitant. No significant differences were found for employment status, household composition, convulsions history, allergies, or influenza vaccine hesitancy. For vaccine hesitancy and decisional conflict, a moderate positive correlation was found and means were significantly higher for the hesitant group. Unclear values and limited supported were positively associated with vaccine hesitancy. Eliminating decision-making conflicts can effectively reduce vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, the findings suggest that it is insufficient to merely provide information. Thus, clarifying the value and providing tangible support from the administration is desirable.
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.