ArticleVaccines2024
Messaging to Reduce Booster Hesitancy among the Fully Vaccinated.
Article in Vaccines, 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.
- Article
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
Vaccine hesitancy was a serious problem in the United States throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, due in part to the reduction in public trust in science that accompanied the pandemic. Now we are facing a new, similar but more extensive problem: booster hesitancy. Even fewer Americans are current on the mRNA booster. We present the results of an experiment with residents of the US who received all initial doses of the mRNA vaccine but who were not up to date on the booster. Participants read a scientific explanation describing either the safety or the effectiveness of the boosters or nothing in the control group. The explanations significantly increased (compared to the control) participants' perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA booster, as well as their willingness to get boosted. Explanations also improved emotions and attitudes toward the booster. Furthermore, although liberals were significantly more willing to get boosted than were conservatives, improvement due to the explanations was similar across political ideology groups. However, when interactions were observed, conservatives increased to a greater degree. Importantly, the explanations increased participants' perception of scientists' expertise and knowledge, as well as participants' trust in scientists and the vaccine technology.
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.