ArticlePloS one2025
Discrimination of a single-item scale to measure intention to have a COVID-19 vaccine.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWhen developing public health measures in a pandemic, it is important to examine attitudes and beliefs relating to vaccination uptake. We report the discrimination of a single-item vaccination intention scale and derive cutpoints in terms of sensitivity (true positives) and specificity (true negatives) in relation to subsequent vaccination status. SUBJECT AND
methodsIn a sample of UK adults (n=1119) recruited through an online survey platform, vaccination intention was measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (0=very unlikely, 10=very likely) at the beginning of the UK COVID-19 vaccination rollout (January 2021), and self-reported vaccination status was gathered after vaccination had been offered to all adults (October 2021). Discrimination of the scale was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
resultsThe responders reporting being vaccinated or unvaccinated were 1034 (92.4%) and 85 (7.6%), respectively. The area under the ROC curve was.956 (95% CI.943,.967), indicating a high degree of discrimination. The combined value of sensitivity and specificity was greatest at a cutpoint of 8 on the scale (sensitivity =.821, specificity =.988). If, however, the individual values of sensitivity and specificity are required to be simultaneously optimized, this occurs at point 6 (sensitivity =.886, specificity =.871).
conclusionWe recommend a 0-10 intention scale as a validated, practical measure of vaccination intention in public health practice, with a cutpoint of 8 on the scale as optimal, unless sensitivity and specificity are to be simultaneously optimized, when 6 is the optimal cutpoint.
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.