Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38675804›Full record

ReviewVaccines2024

Perspectives in the Development of Tools to Assess Vaccine Literacy.

Luigi Roberto Biasio, Patrizio Zanobini, Chiara Lorini, Guglielmo Bonaccorsi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. COVID-19 Vaccine Literacy Among Black Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the USA.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Luigi Roberto BiasioGiovanni Lorenzini Foundation, Viale Piave 35, 20129 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8932-0411
Patrizio ZanobiniDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8202-2937
Chiara LoriniDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-1857
Guglielmo BonaccorsiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5171-4308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccine literacy (VL) is the ability to find, understand, and evaluate vaccination-related information to make appropriate decisions about immunization. The tools developed so far for its evaluation have produced consistent results. However, some dimensions may be underestimated due to the complexity of factors influencing VL. Moreover, the heterogeneity of methods used in studies employing these tools hinders a comprehensive understanding of its role even more. To overcome these limitations, a path has been sought to propose new instruments. This has necessitated updating earlier literature reviews on VL and related tools, exploring its relationship with vaccine hesitancy (VH), and examining associated variables like beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors towards immunization. Based on the current literature, and supported by the re-analysis of a dataset from an earlier study, we propose a theoretical framework to serve as the foundation for creating future assessment tools. These instruments should not only evaluate the psychological factors underlying the motivational aspect of VL, but also encompass knowledge and competencies. The positioning of VL in the framework at the intersection between sociodemographic antecedents and attitudes, leading to behaviors and outcomes, explains why and how VL can directly or indirectly influence vaccination decisions by countering VH and operating at personal, as well as at organizational and community levels.

Indexed as

attitudeshealth literacypsychometric toolsvaccine hesitancyvaccine literacy

Identifiers

PMID38675804
PMCPMC11054371

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.