Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39609773›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Conspiracy narratives and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of prevalence, impact, and interventions.

Frederike Taubert, Georg Meyer-Hoeven, Philipp Schmid, Pia Gerdes, Cornelia Betsch

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Prevalence, nature, and determinants of COVID-19-related conspiracy theories among healthcare workers: a scoping review.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Article
  10. 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.

Frederike TaubertInstitute for Planetary Health Behavior, Health Communication, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany. Frederike.Taubert@uni-erfurt.de.
Georg Meyer-HoevenInstitute for Planetary Health Behavior, Health Communication, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Philipp SchmidInstitute for Planetary Health Behavior, Health Communication, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Pia GerdesInstitute for Planetary Health Behavior, Health Communication, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Cornelia BetschInstitute for Planetary Health Behavior, Health Communication, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Believing conspiracy narratives is frequently assumed to be a major cause of vaccine hesitancy, i.e., the tendency to forgo vaccination despite its availability. In this scoping review, we synthesise and critically evaluate studies that assess i) the occurrence of vaccine-related conspiracy narratives on the internet, ii) the prevalence of belief in vaccine-related conspiracy narratives, iii) the relationship between belief in conspiracy narratives and vaccination intention or vaccination uptake, and iv) interventions that reduce the impact of conspiracy narratives on vaccination intention.In July 2022, we conducted a literature search using three databases: PubMed, PsychInfo, and Web of Science. Following the PRISMA approach, of the 500 initially identified articles, 205 were eligible and analysed.The majority of identified studies were conducted in Europe and North America, were published in 2021 and 2022, and investigated conspiracy narratives around the COVID-19 vaccination. The prevalence of belief in various vaccine-related conspiracy narratives varied greatly across studies, from 2 to 77%. We identified seven experimental studies investigating the effect of exposure to conspiracy narratives on vaccination intentions, of which six indicated a small negative effect. These findings are complemented by the evidence from over 100 correlative studies showing a significant negative relationship between conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intention or uptake. Additionally, the review identified interventions (e.g., social norm feedback, fact-checking labels, or prebunking) that decreased beliefs in vaccine-related conspiracy narratives and, in some cases, also increased vaccination intentions. Yet, these interventions had only small effects.In summary, the review revealed that vaccine-related conspiracy narratives have spread to varying degrees and can influence vaccination decisions. Causal relationships between conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions remain underexplored. Further, the review identified a need for more research on interventions that can reduce the impact of conspiracy narratives.

Indexed as

COVID-19 VaccinesVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansIntentionNarrationPrevalenceVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesConspiracy mentalityConspiracy theoryCOVID-19HPVImmunisationInterventionsMMRReviewVaccination

Identifiers

PMID39609773
PMCPMC11606073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.