Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38450107›Full record

ArticleVaccine: X2024

Personal rights over public Health: Anti-vaccine rhetoric in the Texas Legislature.

Kirstin R W Matthews, Rekha Lakshmanan, Neha Kalakuntla, Neha Tallapragada

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine: X, 2024. 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
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 4 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kirstin R W MatthewsBaker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-40, Houston, TX 77478, USA.
Rekha LakshmananBaker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-40, Houston, TX 77478, USA.
Neha KalakuntlaBaker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-40, Houston, TX 77478, USA.
Neha TallapragadaBaker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-40, Houston, TX 77478, USA.
Rice University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an observed increase in anti-vaccine sentiment linked with requirements for the vaccines. But how did these ideas impact the politics of vaccines? In this paper, the authors analyze witness statements from the 2021 Texas Legislative Session during vaccine-related hearings. Specifically, the research focused on five hearings for bills that related to vaccine requirements or vaccine transparency laws filed during the 2021Texas Legislative Session and witnesses who opposed these measures. From the 128 witnesses cataloged and analyzed, we found 84 witnesses opposed to vaccines. Medical freedom and the right to opt-out of a medical procedure as well as concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness were most frequently used by witnesses to justify their stance against vaccine requirements or vaccines. While some witnesses were opposed to all vaccines, most focused their objections on the COVID-19 vaccine specifically.

Indexed as

Anti-vaccineMedical freedomTexasVaccine hesitantVaccine policy

Identifiers

PMID38450107
PMCPMC10915400
OpenAlexW4392246848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.