ArticleVaccine2025
Perceptions of non-needle-based vaccination devices in the state of Georgia.
Article in Vaccine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundVaccination is important for controlling infectious disease; however, there are logistical barriers associated with needle and syringe-based vaccination. Non-needle-based vaccination methods could address many of these barriers and are in pre-clinical and clinical development. New technology is sometimes followed by hesitancy, affecting acceptance and uptake, highlighting the importance of understanding the perceptions of vaccine delivery methods by potential vaccine recipients.
methodsTo understand perceptions of non-needle-based vaccination methods in the state of Georgia, we surveyed 427 Georgia residents. Respondents were asked about their perceptions of vaccines and new medical technology, willingness to accept a non-needle-based vaccine, and whether they would recommend specific vaccination devices.
resultsRace and ethnicity were found to impact vaccine hesitancy and trust in new medical developments hesitancy. Of 427 participants, 29.3 % were more likely to accept non-needle-based devices over needle/syringe, 35.1 % were just as likely to accept, 14.4 % were unsure, and 20.6 % indicated that non-needle-based methods would not make them more likely to receive a vaccine. Race, urbanization, insurance status, vaccine hesitancy, and trust in new medical developments affected willingness to accept a non-needle-based vaccine. Needle/syringe vaccine devices were the most accepted method based on a picture and short description (77.6 %), inhaled vaccine devices were the least recommended (46.8 %); nasal spray (64.3 %), jet injector (60.0 %), skin patch (57.3 %), and oral delivery (54.0 %) were between these values.
conclusionsWhile needle/syringe is the preferred method of vaccination, there are clear preferences among non-needle-based vaccine delivery methods; however, demographic factors that are associated should be considered as these devices move through clinical testing. Our future work will involve in-depth interviews to further identify important themes affecting vaccine acceptance in Georgia. Due to potential hesitancy, we need to strengthen our understanding of themes associated with vaccine perceptions to enable design of accurate and persuasive materials for physicians and patients.
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.