ArticleScientific reports2025
Strategies to correct vaccine misinformation on social media for pregnant women and the impact of vaccine skepticism.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding vaccinations among LGBTQIA+ community in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Contextualizing Racial and Ethnic Inequities in COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake During Pregnancy Through a Community-Led Evaluation.Birth defects research · 2026Article
- Pandemic paradox: How the COVID-19 crisis transformed vaccine hesitancy into a two-edged sword.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Investigating epistemic emotions experienced while reading refutation texts through a fine-grained measure of emotion.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- TikTok, Bilibili, and Xiaohongshu as sources of information on frailty: Cross-sectional content analysis study.Digital healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health-related misinformation on social media may affect vaccination behavior, particularly among (soon-to-be) mothers. Research suggested different strategies to correct misinformation, but it is unclear which strategies work best for what group and in what situation. Addressing the call for more emotion-based debunking strategies, this study examined how text genre (narrative vs. expository) and harm presence (with vs. without harm-stressing messages) interact to affect emotional responses, and debunking efficacy in corrective texts about vaccination and reproductive health, specifically targeting pregnant or planning-to-be pregnant women (N = 432) with varying levels of vaccine skepticism. We further assessed social media engagement, and information-seeking intentions. In particular, harm presence was tested as a moderator in the relationship between text genre and emotional responses, which in turn, mediate outcomes such as engagement with corrective texts and further information-seeking intentions on social media. Results from an online experimental survey showed that, in general, corrective texts about COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more effective in reducing misconceptions compared to control texts. For women not skeptical towards vaccination, narratives with harm-stressing messages (vs. no harm) induced most negative emotions, reducing debunking efficacy, social media engagement, and information-seeking intention. For women skeptical towards vaccination, narratives (vs. expository) elicited stronger negative emotions, irrespective of harm-stressing messages, leading to decreased debunking efficacy, social media engagement, and the intention to seek information. This study illuminates the importance of tailoring vaccination corrective texts for different vaccine skepticism groups, avoiding one-size-fits-all strategies and being mindful of strong negative emotions and their counter-persuasive impact.
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.