ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2025
Explaining seasonality increases perceived effectiveness of influenza vaccination: An experimental study.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2025. 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.
- Explaining seasonality increases perceived effectiveness of influenza vaccination: An experimental study.British journal of health psychology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDoubts regarding vaccine effectiveness may prompt people to decide against a seasonal influenza vaccination. While fact boxes show the effectiveness in terms of cases prevented, people often lack knowledge about important contextual factors, for example, why the vaccine formulation needs to be updated annually, the vaccine mechanism and relevance of the antigen-virus match. Adding such contextual information could improve effectiveness perceptions.
objectiveIn a preregistered online experiment, we tested whether explaining the seasonality's relevance and mechanisms behind influenza vaccine effectiveness affects people's perceptions of influenza vaccination. We compared two means of explanation (an additional expository text vs. a narrative offering an analogy to improve understanding of vaccine effectiveness) with a control condition simply providing effectiveness information.
designUnvaccinated participants (N = 1554) were assigned to one of three conditions: (1) fact box only (providing the influenza vaccine's benefit-risk profile; control group), (2) fact box plus informational expository text or (3) fact box plus narrative analogy.
methodsAfter the experimental manipulations, participants rated the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing influenza disease and answered knowledge questions. Effects on perceived risk of vaccination and intention to get vaccinated were also explored.
resultsReading the expository text increased the perceived vaccine effectiveness and overall knowledge, while reading the narrative analogy only increased the perceived vaccine effectiveness compared with the control condition. All other dependent variables were similar in both text conditions.
conclusionsExtended explanations of vaccine effectiveness can increase perceived vaccine effectiveness. The text format chosen can affect outcomes, such as vaccine-related perceptions or knowledge.
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.