Trial reportScientific reports2024
An effective COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy intervention focused on the relative risks of vaccination and infection.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccination and Perceptions Around Vaccination Uptake Strategies Among African Americans Living in the US South: Opportunities for Public Health Program Intervention.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Exploring the correlates of COVID-19 vaccination inequity: a global analysis using machine learning from a health economic lens.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Delay discounting predicts COVID-19 vaccine booster willingness.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We designed the Relative Risk Tool (RRT) to help people assess the relative risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination and infection. In May 2022 (N = 400) and November 2022 (N = 615), U.S. residents participated in a survey that included questions about the risks of vaccination and infection. In both cohorts, we found an association between relative risk perception and vaccine hesitancy. Participants in the May cohort were randomly assigned an intervention: to see information from the RRT or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). After the intervention, participants answered the same questions about risk perception and vaccination intent again. The RRT was more effective than the CDC at changing risk perception and increasing vaccination intent. In November, the survey structure was the same, but the RRT was the only intervention included, and we confirmed that the RRT was effective at changing opinions in this new sample. Importantly, the RRT provided accurate information about the risks of serious adverse outcomes to vaccination and still increased vaccination intent. Our work suggests that the RRT helps people assess relative risk, which can in turn help empower them to make informed decisions and ultimately reduce vaccine hesitancy.
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.