Trial reportScientific reports2025
An experimental study on the effects of electronic medicinal product information on vaccine hesitancy.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Although immunization through vaccination is one of the most successful public health interventions, coverage of some vaccination programs has decreased in recent years due to increased vaccine hesitancy. Cognitive biases have been shown to play an important role in affecting vaccine hesitancy. In this study, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 2000, N = 1000 from Spain and N = 1000 from Bulgaria), where subjects were randomly assigned to one experimental condition. The experimental conditions differed by whether electronic product information (ePI) was presented to the subjects and by the type of information that was made more salient to the patient. The current study showed that the provision of digital information in the form of ePI has important consequences for achieving high vaccination rates. The main result suggests that providing vaccination information in the form of ePI can increase patients' vaccine hesitancy. This effect remained when positive and/or negative information in the ePI was made more salient to the patients. Additionally, we observe that vaccine hesitant individuals spend less time reading ePI. We conclude, by relating the current study to the relevant literature, that salience and information overload could be the main driver of vaccine hesitancy in the context of this study.
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.