Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37885614›Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2023

Touching the cornerstone: An illustrative example of the effects of stigma and discrimination on vaccine-hesitant parents.

Joana Mendonça, Ana Patrícia Hilário

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joana MendonçaInstituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Aníbal Bettencourt 9, 1600-189, Lisboa, Portugal.
Ana Patrícia HilárioInstituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Aníbal Bettencourt 9, 1600-189, Lisboa, Portugal.
University of Lisbon · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The concept of vaccine hesitancy encompasses multiple views on the subject. However, there has been an increasing polarization of the discourse on vaccine hesitancy leading to the stigmatization of those parents who expressed doubts or concerns regarding vaccination practices. The present study aimed to explore the drivers and consequences of polarized discourses on vaccination in the Portuguese context. This paper is part of a broader study which aims to gain a deeper understanding about the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy at the European level. Study design: A qualitative research design was used. Methods: The sample was comprised of thirty-one Portuguese vaccine hesitant parents who were interviewed. A thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was performed which allowed us to identify key themes. Results: The results showed that the labelling of vaccine-hesitant parents as 'anti-vaxxers' along with social media play a crucial role in promoting the polarization of vaccine-related attitudes. The stigmatization of vaccine hesitant parents has a disruptive impact on their social network leading them to search for online platforms where they can exchange vaccines-related information without being discriminated. Conclusions: The stigma and discrimination experienced by vaccine-hesitant parents stimulated that hesitancy becomes more entrenched. Therefore, pluralism should be used to tailor vaccination promotion campaigns to different targets, promoting its reach and efficacy.

Indexed as

PolarizationPublic healthVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID37885614
PMCPMC10598680
OpenAlexW4387748895

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.