ArticleJournal of applied research in memory and cognition2025
Lay Understanding of Vaccine Efficacy.
Article in Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 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.
- Attitudes and Behaviors of Canadians Towards COVID-19 Prevention Measures According to Vaccination Status: A Multi-phase, Cross-sectional Sequential Observational Cohort Study from May 2021 to June 2022.International journal of behavioral medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although perceived vaccine efficacy is strongly associated with vaccination behavior, little is known about how well laypeople understand what vaccine efficacy rates mean. Three experiments (N=3402) explored errors in how laypeople process numerical information about vaccine efficacy rates and examined the effects of three tutorial interventions designed to bring lay perceptions in line with normative efficacy calculations. Findings indicate that responses to questions about efficacy rate tend to align with normatively correct calculations, whereas responses to questions about the rate of infections indicate an incorrect calculation whereby the post-vaccination risk of infection is assumed to be the efficacy rate subtracted from 100%. Both quantitative and conceptual tutorial interventions helped participants calculate efficacy rates that were more aligned with the normatively correct values and infection rates that were less aligned with the incorrect values, particularly when participants had higher numeracy levels or responded with numeric inputs rather than choices between options.
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.