Trial reportFrontiers in public health2024
Gender differences in responses to an altruistic message regarding rubella vaccination.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- [Determinants of trust and acceptance of vaccines in the Dominican RepublicDeterminantes da confiança nas vacinas e sua aceitação na República Dominicana].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The supplementary immunization activity (SIA) for the rubella vaccination of adult men born between 1962 and 1978 began in 2019 in Japan because of a vaccine gap in the cohort, as vaccination was not mandatory for those born in that period. However, SIA coverage remains low, despite an active campaign and financial support. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled study based on a 2 (scenario: self-vaccination, child vaccination) × 2 (message: self-interest, group-interest) factorial design, using a Japanese online panel. Participants with children were assigned to the child vaccination scenario in Intervention 1, whereas others were assigned to the self-vaccination scenario. After Intervention 1, all participants were given the same information about rubella. In Intervention 2, participants assigned to self-interest messages received a message emphasizing the risk of rubella, and those assigned to group-interest messages received a message emphasizing herd immunity. After Intervention 2, we evaluated the effects using a questionnaire. Results: Among the 2,206 participants, information regarding rubella was evaluated as more reliable in the group-than in the self-interest message condition, especially among women. Women evaluated the necessity of rubella vaccination for adult men and women to be higher in the child-vaccination scenario and group-interest messages. However, no differences were found among men. By contrast, men exposed to the self-interest message positively evaluated the reliability of the rubella explanation. Conclusion: The findings indicate that emphasizing self-interest messages is more effective for men in promoting herd immunity against rubella.
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.