ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2025
Attitudes and beliefs regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 Omicron booster vaccine among adults in the vaccine safety datalink, 2022-2023.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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.
- A comprehensive assessment of the impact of COVID variant and vaccination on venous thromboembolism and mortality.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccination rates are decreasing despite vaccination being the most effective tool against severe disease from COVID-19. From October 1, 2022, to February 1, 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional study among adults in the Vaccine Safety Datalink about attitudes and beliefs regarding bivalent COVID-19 Omicron booster vaccine (hereafter referred to as COVID-19 bivalent vaccine) stratifying by vaccination status and race and ethnicity. Analysis was weighted for response and selection bias. The response rate was 27% (385/1430); 33% [95% CI: 21%-44%] of respondents were 'fully vaccinated' (had received COVID-19 bivalent vaccine), 54% [42%-67%] were partially vaccinated, and 13% [7%-19%] were unvaccinated. Fully vaccinated adults were more likely to consider COVID-19 bivalent vaccine 'very effective' (64%, [43%-86%]) at preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19 than partially (31%, [12%-50%]) or unvaccinated (2%, [0%-6%]) adults. Fully vaccinated adults were more likely to report COVID-19 bivalent vaccine was 'very safe' (83%, [69%-98%]) than partially (43%, [23%-63%]) or unvaccinated adults (2%, 0%-6%). Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report COVID-19 bivalent vaccine was 'very safe' (71%, [54%-87%]) than Non-Hispanic Black (36%, [21%-50%]) and Hispanic (26%, [7%-45%]) adults. A dose-response effect between vaccination status and perceptions of COVID-19 bivalent vaccine safety and effectiveness was observed, with fully vaccinated respondents having the most favorable attitudes. Racial and ethnic differences in perceived vaccine safety were also found. Improved communication about vaccine effectiveness and safety is key to improving low vaccination rates.
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.