Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39327285›Full record

ReviewInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Vaccine hesitancy in postpandemic times-A guide for physicians].

Cornelia Betsch, Sarah Eitze, Lars Korn, Parichehr Shamsrizi, Frederike Taubert

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Digital innovations in vaccination communication].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Cornelia BetschInstitute for Planetary Health Behaviour, Gesundheitskommunikation, Universität Erfurt, Max-Weber-Allee 3, 99089, Erfurt, Deutschland. cornelia.betsch@uni-erfurt.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-7303
Sarah EitzeInstitute for Planetary Health Behaviour, Gesundheitskommunikation, Universität Erfurt, Max-Weber-Allee 3, 99089, Erfurt, Deutschland.
Lars KornInstitute for Planetary Health Behaviour, Gesundheitskommunikation, Universität Erfurt, Max-Weber-Allee 3, 99089, Erfurt, Deutschland.
Parichehr ShamsriziInstitute for Planetary Health Behaviour, Gesundheitskommunikation, Universität Erfurt, Max-Weber-Allee 3, 99089, Erfurt, Deutschland.
Frederike TaubertInstitute for Planetary Health Behaviour, Gesundheitskommunikation, Universität Erfurt, Max-Weber-Allee 3, 99089, Erfurt, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasized the importance of vaccinations for the prevention of life-threatening diseases and for avoiding the overburdening of the healthcare system. Despite the clear advantage of vaccinations, increasing vaccine hesitancy has been observed worldwide, especially among young people who are potential future parents. Vaccine hesitancy describes the delayed or lack of willingness to utilize recommended vaccinations and represents a substantial challenge for public health. This article analyzes the causes of vaccine hesitancy in the postpandemic period and discusses factors that could make communication successful. The role of artificial intelligence and structured evidence-based discussion techniques, such as the empathetic refutation interview, are emphasized. The aim is to provide practice-oriented recommendations to be able to provide physicians with tools that can help in the education counselling with insecure patients and can promote the acceptance of vaccinations.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesPandemicsVaccination HesitancyArtificial IntelligenceHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesArtificial intelligenceChatbotsCommunication techniquesDoctor–patient communicationMisinformation on vaccination

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.