ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2025
The good, the bad, and the ugly: A qualitative evaluation of web-based COVID-19 vaccine communication in Canada.
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.
- Interactive, Personalized Patient Decision Aid for COVID-19 Vaccination in Canada: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Poor website accessibility and usability with credible website/information sources can create barriers to the equitable uptake of vaccines. Scarce research investigates how intended users interact with and perceive official COVID-19 websites. We examine how people in Canada interact with official COVID-19 vaccine websites and how they use information to inform their choices regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. Using a qualitative design and talk-aloud (also called 'think-aloud') method, we conducted interviews with 50 general population individuals residing in 3 provinces in Canada in July-December 2021, during which they navigated specific government websites and attempted to find information on various aspects of COVID-19. During the interviews, participants were given specific tasks (e.g. searching for specific information on the websites) and asked to 'think aloud' while performing them. Thematic content was used to identify positive and negative elements regarding the websites that were stated by participants as they navigated the websites. Our analysis demonstrated that participants appreciated websites that featured user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing designs, had local and updated information, offered links to reputable sources, and dispelled misconceptions. Participants also critiqued sites for using technical jargon, presenting seemingly insufficient information, and potentially having conflicts of interest. These findings underline the need for health authorities to prioritize web-based communication and understand the information needs of their audience. Ignoring user preferences raises potential risks of poor communication, such as leaving their citizens seeking information elsewhere.
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.