ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Modelling the dynamic vaccination game with evolutionary feedback: exploring pairwise interactions and vaccine strategies.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact Mechanism of Government Regulation on the Operation of Smart Health Senior Care Service Platform: A Perspective From Evolutionary Game Theory.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Investigating the impact of environmental feedback on the optional prisoner's dilemma for insights into cyclic dominance and evolution of cooperation.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Modelling the dynamic vaccination game with evolutionary feedback: exploring pairwise interactions and vaccine strategies.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A novel approach rooted in co-evolutionary game theory has been introduced to investigate how the interaction between human decision-making and the dynamics of the epidemic environment can shape vaccine acceptance during disease outbreaks. This innovative framework combines two key game concepts: the cooperation-defection game and the cost-benefit vaccination game. By doing so, it enables us to delve into the various factors that influence the success of a vaccination campaign amid an outbreak. Within this framework, individuals engage in a thorough evaluation of the risks, benefits and incentives associated with either cooperating by getting vaccinated or defecting by refusing the vaccine. Additionally, it involves a careful analysis of the costs and benefits linked to vaccine acceptance. The outcomes of this study stress the importance of two main factors: the effectiveness of the vaccine and the prevalence of a cooperative culture within society. This insight into the strategic interactions between individuals and their decisions about vaccination holds significant implications for public health policymakers. It equips to boost vaccination coverage and address vaccine hesitancy within society ultimately contributing to better public health outcomes during epidemic outbreaks.
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.