Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674932›Full record

ArticleVaccine: X2023

COVID-19 vaccination preferences during a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration.

Abram L Wagner, Felicia Zhang, Stefania Kerekes, Shu-Fang Shih, Lili Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine: X, 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Abram L WagnerDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Felicia ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Stefania KerekesDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Shu-Fang ShihDepartment of Health Administration, College of Health Professions, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
Lili ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In April 2021, the US paused Janssen (J&J) COVID-19 vaccination because of reported blood clots post vaccination. This paper explores how vaccine decision-making--receiving a J&J vaccine right away vs waiting for a Pfizer vaccine--changed during the pause. In an opt-in internet-based survey April 2021 with 915 participants, 37 % were not vaccinated. Of these, 18 % would accept a J&J vaccine, 5 % would wait 1 month for a Pfizer vaccine, 25 % would wait 3 months, and 52 % would not want any vaccine. Among the unvaccinated, 56 % had heard of blood clots; 61 % of these did not want any vaccine, compared to 41 % of those who had not heard of blood clots. Moreover, among those vaccine hesitant in general, 11 % would still obtain a J&J vaccine if offered right away. These findings may suggest spillover of brand-specific adverse event concerns to the vaccine product as a whole.

Indexed as

Adverse reactionsCOVID-19Risk perceptionsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID37674932
PMCPMC10477674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.