ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
The persuasiveness of vaccine focused social media posts to parents of adolescents.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Social media and online health information play an important role in vaccine decision making. Our aim is to examine the persuasiveness of social media posts about vaccines for mothers of youth by vaccine hesitancy. Methods: A U.S. national survey of mothers of adolescents aged nine to 17 in 2023 assessed persuasiveness of vaccine-related social media posts. Persuasiveness dimensions included information source, presence of a hyperlink, vaccine type, and message type. A fractional-factorial design identified nine posts/scenarios, varying across the four dimensions. Respondents rated the persuasiveness of each from zero to 100. Ratings-based conjoint analysis evaluated relative preferences, translated into importance scores, indicating the influence of each stratified by low, medium, and high vaccine hesitancy. Results: The 3803 mothers indicated that information source (American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] most preferred; importance score = 57.2) contributed most strongly to persuasiveness, followed by vaccine type (human papillomavirus [HPV] most preferred; importance score = 22.9), then preference for a hyperlink (importance score = 17.1), and a statistical post (importance score = 2.8). Stratified by vaccine hesitancy, the mean persuasiveness across all nine posts/scenarios was significantly different between the groups. All groups reported information source (AAP most preferred) and vaccine type (HPV most preferred) as most persuasive. All preferred hyperlinks, but the higher hesitancy groups found narrative posts more persuasive. Conclusions: These data highlight the importance of posts directed at parents emanating from trusted sources like the AAP, with hyperlinks to further information. For individuals with vaccine hesitancy, our findings support sharing stories instead of statistical posts.
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.