ArticleVaccine: X2024
Exploring COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among young adults in Australia. A qualitative study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of an online vaccine misinformation game for Arabic-speaking Australians: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Have you done your research? Information sources and trust as predictors of vaccine intentions and uptake during Australia's COVID-19 vaccination rollout.Australian journal of psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among young adults in Australia is still poorly understood. Young adults aged 25-34 years have been identified as a population subgroup where COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant views are highly prevalent. Objective: Exploring the attitudes, thoughts, feelings and social environments affecting the decision to have or not have the vaccine can provide vital transferrable lessons in future health campaigns. Methods: A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted using semi-structured phone interviews between June 2021 and July 2021. Interview questions were adopted from the World Health Organization's guidance document 'Data for Action: Achieving High Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines'. Participants aged 25-34 years (n = 26) were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling methods. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Overall, participants presented themselves as highly vaccine literate, understanding their social contract with society. Many participants also did not display traditional vaccine-hesitant views. Six themes specifically regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified, namely (1) decision-making complexities, (2) perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, (3) media's misrepresentation of COVID-19, (4) vaccine-related issues, (5) inconsistent government messaging and program execution, and (6) social benefits assessment. In addition, motivators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake were classified into three categories: (1) tangible benefits, (2) protecting others, and (3) mandates and incentives. Findings suggest the motivators for COVID-19 vaccine uptake in young adults depend on individual benefits, highlighting the importance of recognising and addressing personal concerns. Conclusion: There is a need to re-examine and redefine the meaning of vaccine hesitancy in young Australian adults. We offer an understanding of prospective challenges with vaccine hesitancy and potential solutions to address them. These include carefully tailored approaches regarding ongoing vaccine safety concerns and the expected personal benefits following vaccination. Combining these factors can aid in developing new methods of public engagement in the next public health crisis.
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.