Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41059068›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied research in memory and cognition2025

Lay Understanding of Vaccine Efficacy.

Alison E Butler, Gretchen B Chapman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Alison E ButlerDepartment of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Gretchen B ChapmanDepartment of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

Don't Throw Your Heart Away: Decision Processes Explain the High Discard Rate of Pediatric Donor HeartsF30HL152526 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BUTLER, ALISON ELAINE · 2020 to 2023
$206k
NHLBI NIH HHS F30 HL152526
6 · The paper itself

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

Cognitionhealthjudgmentnumeracyriskvaccination

Identifiers

PMID41059068
PMCPMC12499651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.