ArticlePloS one2023
The doctor knows or the evidence shows: An online survey experiment testing the effects of source trust, pro-vaccine evidence, and dual-processing in expert messages recommending child COVID-19 vaccination to parents.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Increasing child vaccination rates is a critical step toward mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Both distrust in expert sources and concern about the safety and efficacy of vaccines may contribute to parent vaccine hesitancy. The present study is the first to test the effectiveness of building trust and providing evidence supporting child COVID-19 vaccines in recommendation messages for parents. Based on dual-processing theories, emphasis on source trustworthiness and pro-vaccine evidence may each be particularly effective when the other is not present. It was hypothesized that these two approaches would have main and interaction effects on perceived message effectiveness and pro-vaccine beliefs. A between-subjects 2 (trust-building appeal vs. no trust-building appeal) X 2 (pro-vaccine evidence vs. no pro-vaccine evidence) online survey experiment was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 with United States parents/guardians of children <18 years old (n = 401). As hypothesized, trust and pro-vaccine evidence each had significant simple main effects on both outcomes. Analysis of variance showed a significant negative interaction effect of trust and pro-vaccine evidence on perceived message effectiveness [F(3, 394) = 6.47; η2 = 0.02, p = 0.002; 95% CI (0.01, 0.11)], supporting the dual-processing hypothesis. The interaction effect on pro-vaccine beliefs was also negative but not significant [F(3, 394) = 2.69; η2 = 0.01; p = 0.102; 95% CI (0.00, 0.03)]. Either highlighting evidence supporting vaccines or building trust in expert sources can influence parent vaccine support. Messages which include strong evidence supporting recommended behaviors may influence recommendation acceptance even among those with lower trust in expert sources and establishing trust may reduce the need to describe available evidence.
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.