ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025
Between intention and action: the paradoxes of female vaccination.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe article addresses two paradoxes related to the vaccination of women in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first paradox lies in the fact that, though women tend to be more concerned about health issues, they declare less of an intention to vaccinate than do men. The second paradox is that, despite reporting less intention to vaccinate, women actually take up vaccines more than men. This article sets out to study the reasons for these paradoxes.
methodsWe used information from a representative sample of the Spanish population. A dichotomous variable was created ('change' versus 'consistency', in relation to respondents' intention and final decision to get vaccinated), and two logistic regression models were applied: one for the group of women and the other for the group of men.
resultsSeveral factors have been identified as influencing the change of opinion: such as trust in the health system, conspiracy beliefs about vaccines, positive evaluation of science and technology, level of knowledge, ideology and religion. It is noteworthy that several differences are found between men and women in terms of the factors causing them to change their opinion about vaccination.
conclusionsThe most relevant conclusion is that intention studies in the field of vaccination lose predictive power in the case of women's vaccination. It should also be noted that, with women, there are no factors that conclusively explain their change of opinion. Therefore, if the factors influencing vaccination behaviour are to be discovered, it is necessary to modify the questions included in the questionnaires in order to find the variables that explain women's behaviour.
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.