ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2024
Vaccine safety beliefs in the state of Alaska.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Provider perspectives on HPV vaccine hesitancy in the post-COVID-19 era.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Identifying the key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge as has been highlighted throughout the COVID-19 vaccine roll out and pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics associated with vaccine safety and compare perceived safety by vaccine. Our hypothesis is that vaccine safety perception will vary by vaccine with COVID-19 as ranked lowest for safety. Study design: Cross sectional. Methods: A statewide sample (n = 1024) responded to an online 28-point questionnaire via anonymous linked invitation. Results: Among the eight vaccines assessed, COVID-19 had the lowest perceived safety (53.13%) followed by human papillomavirus HPV (63.38%). A binomial logistic regression assessed COVID-19 vaccine safety beliefs (safe v not safe) finding age, political orientation, and perceived safety of certain vaccines as statistically significant. As age increased by year, vaccine safety beliefs increased. Persons who identified as conservative demonstrated less belief in vaccine safety than all other groups. Among persons who did not perceive the COVID-19 vaccine as safe, 65.8% believed chicken pox was safe, 63.3% and 61.1% perceived hepatitis A& B were safe. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that vaccine safety beliefs differ by vaccine and that persons who do not believe in the safety of the COVID-19 are not exclusively against all vaccines. Understanding factors that increase vaccine safety by vaccine could assist in developing an intervention which could increase belief in safety for all vaccines.
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.