Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973410›Full record

ArticleNature medicine2023

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine fatigue.

Tanja A Stamm, Julia Partheymüller, Erika Mosor, Valentin Ritschl, Sylvia Kritzinger, Alessia Alunno, Jakob-Moritz Eberl

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
21.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tanja A Stamm *Institute of Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. tanja.stamm@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3073-7284
Julia Partheymüller *Department of Government, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Erika MosorInstitute of Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4293-0647
Valentin RitschlInstitute of Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8763-8215
Sylvia KritzingerDepartment of Government, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2765-8200
Alessia AlunnoDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila and Internal Medicine and Nephrology Division, ASL1 Avezzano-Sulmona-L'Aquila, San Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.
Jakob-Moritz EberlDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation with AUVA · ATUniversity of Vienna · ATUniversity of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing concern that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine fatigue will be a major obstacle in maintaining immunity in the general population. In this study, we assessed vaccine acceptance in future scenarios in two conjoint experiments, investigating determinants such as new vaccines, communication, costs/incentives and legal rules. The experiments were embedded in an online survey (n = 6,357 participants) conducted in two European countries (Austria and Italy). Our results suggest that vaccination campaigns should be tailored to subgroups based on their vaccination status. Among the unvaccinated, campaign messages conveying community spirit had a positive effect (0.343, confidence interval (CI) 0.019-0.666), whereas offering positive incentives, such as a cash reward (0.722, CI 0.429-1.014) or voucher (0.670, CI 0.373-0.967), was pivotal to the decision-making of those vaccinated once or twice. Among the triple vaccinated, vaccination readiness increased when adapted vaccines were offered (0.279, CI 0.182-0.377), but costs (-0.795, CI -0.935 to -0.654) and medical dissensus (-0.161, CI -0.293 to -0.030) reduced their likelihood to get vaccinated. We conclude that failing to mobilize the triple vaccinated is likely to result in booster vaccination rates falling short of expectations. For long-term success, measures fostering institutional trust should be considered. These results provide guidance to those responsible for future COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCommunicationEuropeFatigueHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36973410
PMCPMC10202806
OpenAlexW4360999097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.