Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37515024›Full record

ArticleVaccines2023

How Scientists View Vaccine Hesitancy.

Eric W Welch, Timothy P Johnson, Tipeng Chen, Jinghuan Ma, Shaika Islam, Lesley Forst Michalegko, Mattia Caldarulo, Ashlee Frandell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Scrutinizing the COVID-19 vaccine safety debate.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Eric W WelchCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Timothy P JohnsonDepartment of Public Policy, Management, and Analytics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA.
Tipeng ChenCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9260-030X
Jinghuan MaCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Shaika IslamCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Lesley Forst MichalegkoCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0264-3299
Mattia CaldaruloCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2579-2126
Ashlee FrandellCenter for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists' ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research.

Indexed as

decision makinghealth crisisriskscience communicationscience controversyscientist opinionsscientist rolesvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID37515024
PMCPMC10385302

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.