Trial reportBMC public health2024
Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2024. 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, 3 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGermans hesitated to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca in the COVID-19 pandemic after reports of blood clots.
methodsIn two preregistered online experiments with stratified randomization (Study 1 N = 824, Study 2: N = 1,056), we tested whether providing evidence-based benefit-risk information reduces the perceived risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine and increases the vaccination intention. In Study 1, participants saw no infographic (control) or one of two infographics (low vs. high exposure risk varied by the underlying incidence rates). Study 2 additionally varied the infographic design displaying the risk information (presented as table, circle icons, or manikin-like icons).
resultsThe infographic decreased the risk perception of the vaccine compared to no infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]), but it did not influence the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine (Study 2: Cohens d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33]). Also, the infographic design did not affect the perceived probability of blood clots (Study 2). The vaccination intention was not affected by viewing the infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32]) nor the presented infection rate (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24], Study 2: Cohens d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.15]) but by risk perceptions, sociodemographic characteristics, confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and preference for alternative vaccines.
conclusionsThe evidence-based benefit-risk information helped putting the risk of vaccinations into perspective. Nevertheless, objective risk information alone did not affect vaccination intention that was low due to the preexisting lacking vaccine confidence.
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.