Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40658676›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Vaccination readiness and political party preference in Germany: Trust, collective responsibility, and the populist radical right.

Kathleen D Magnus, Niklas Dammann, Daniel Lüdecke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kathleen D MagnusInstitute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4355-0480
Niklas DammannInstitute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Daniel LüdeckeInstitute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies in Western countries have linked vaccine hesitancy to populist political leanings. This study focused on Germany, where there has been considerable debate as to whether this hesitancy is common across the political spectrum, fueled equally by right and left populist extremes, or driven primarily by the populist radical right. The aim of this study was to determine whether and to what extent two specific aspects of vaccine readiness -- trust and collective responsibility -- correlate with political party preferences in Germany. Evidence from a large-scale survey of German citizens (n = 2,191) showed that even after adjusting for gender, age, and education level, several indicators of vaccine hesitancy were most pronounced among supporters of Germany's far-right populist party, the Alternative for Germany. Though these voters expressed a degree of vaccine readiness on some of the measures, they deviated significantly from all other voting groups in the direction of vaccine hesitancy on every measure. Green party voters expressed the strongest vaccine readiness, with the other major parties following close behind. The belief that the medical establishment profited excessively during the pandemic was prevalent across all parties. Taken together, these results suggest that political affiliations may play a sizeable role in views about vaccines. Results also affirm the importance that public trust and collective responsibility have for the realization of public health goals.

Indexed as

PoliticsSocial ResponsibilityTrustVaccinationVaccination HesitancyAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40658676
PMCPMC12258577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.