Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37946143›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? The interplay between pro- and against- vaccination reasons.

Marta Caserotti, Paolo Girardi, Roberta Sellaro, Enrico Rubaltelli, Alessandra Tasso, Lorella Lotto, Teresa Gavaruzzi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Marta CaserottiDepartment of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padua, Italy. marta.caserotti@unipd.it.
Paolo GirardiDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca' Foscari University of Venezia, Venice, Italy.
Roberta SellaroDepartment of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Enrico RubaltelliDepartment of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Alessandra TassoDepartment of Humanities, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Lorella LottoDepartment of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Teresa GavaruzziDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
University of Padua · ITCa' Foscari University of Venice · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITUniversity of Ferrara · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBy mid 2023, European countries reached 75% of vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and although vaccination rates are quite high, many people are still hesitant. A plethora of studies have investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, however, insufficient attention has been paid to the reasons why people get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our work aims to investigate the role of reasons in the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a representative sample of 1,689 adult Italians (March-April 2021) balanced in terms of age, gender, educational level and area of residence.

methodsThrough an online questionnaire, we asked participants to freely report up to three reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccination, and the weight each had in the decision to get vaccinated. We first investigated the role of emotional competence and COVID-19 risk perception in the generation of both reasons using regression models. Next, we studied the role that the different reasons had in the vaccination decision, considering both the intention to vaccinate (using a beta regression model) and the decision made by the participants who already had the opportunity to get vaccinated (using a logistic regression model). Finally, two different classification tree analyses were carried out to characterize profiles with a low or high willingness to get vaccinated or with a low or high probability to accept/book the vaccine.

resultsHigh emotional competence positively influences the generation of both reasons (ORs > 1.5), whereas high risk perception increases the generation of positive reasons (ORs > 1.4) while decreasing reasons against vaccination (OR = 0.64). As pro-reasons increase, vaccination acceptance increases, while the opposite happens as against-reasons increase (all p < 0.001). One strong reason in favor of vaccines is enough to unbalance the decision toward acceptance of vaccination, even when reasons against it are also present (p < 0.001). Protection and absence of distrust are the reasons that mostly drive willingness to be vaccinated and acceptance of an offered vaccine.

conclusionsKnowing the reasons that drive people's decision about such an important choice can suggest new communication insights to reduce possible negative reactions toward vaccination and people's hesitancy. Results are discussed considering results of other national and international studies.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultCommunicationEducational StatusHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesEmotional competencesPro-and against-reasonsRisk perceptionVaccination intention

Identifiers

PMID37946143
PMCPMC10634164
OpenAlexW4388516229

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.