Trial reportVaccine2025
Hesitancy and confidence in pediatric COVID-19 vaccination among diverse caregivers of unvaccinated children.
Trial report in Vaccine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding factors associated with hesitancy about pediatric COVID-19 vaccination is important for identifying strategies to improve vaccination rates. Our objective was to describe beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination among caregivers who had not yet vaccinated their children against COVID-19.
methodsFrom July 2022 to February 2023, caregivers of children unvaccinated for COVID-19 across 15 states within the IDeA States Pediatrics Clinical Trial Network were recruited into a randomized, controlled trial of a COVID-19 vaccine communication phone app. Recruitment sites served high numbers of children from rural areas or of backgrounds other than non-Hispanic White. At baseline, caregivers answered questions from the SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), and questions about trusted sources of information about COVID-19. We compared responses by rurality, race, and ethnicity using chi-square tests, and used multivariable modeling of a composite outcome of summed VHS scores to identify factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.
resultsA total of 725 caregivers were randomized; 512 completed the baseline survey. Many caregivers lived in a rural area (34.9 %) and nearly half were of non-White race (47.3 %). Over 80 % somewhat or strongly agreed that vaccines are important, that childhood vaccines are effective, and that vaccination is a good way to protect children from disease. Rural caregivers were more likely than non-rural caregivers to state that they generally do what their doctor recommends with regard to childhood vaccines (46.93 % vs. 37.00 %, p < .0021). In the multivariable model, the combined group of Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander or multiracial caregivers, and Black or African American caregivers, had a higher vaccine hesitancy compared to White caregivers (25.25, 25.91, 22.50 respectively) (p < .0001).
conclusionsAs we navigate work to build vaccine confidence, this study provides support for additional directions of study to better understand particular populations and could be further reproduced to look at intentions with other vaccines.
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.