ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Social imitation dynamics of vaccination driven by vaccine effectiveness and beliefs.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Declines in vaccination coverage for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles and chickenpox, have enabled their surprising comebacks and pose significant public health challenges in the wake of growing vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine opt-outs and refusals are often fueled by beliefs concerning perceptions of vaccine effectiveness and exaggerated risks. Here, we quantify the impact of competing beliefs - vaccine-averse versus vaccine-neutral - on social imitation dynamics of vaccination, alongside the epidemiological dynamics of disease transmission. These beliefs may be pre-existing and fixed, or coevolving attitudes. This interplay among beliefs, behaviors, and disease dynamics demonstrates that individuals are not perfectly rational; rather, they base their vaccine uptake decisions on beliefs, personal experiences, and social influences. We find that the presence of a small proportion of fixed vaccine-averse beliefs can significantly exacerbate the vaccination dilemma, making the tipping point in the hysteresis loop more sensitive to changes in individuals' perceived costs of vaccination and vaccine effectiveness. However, in scenarios where competing beliefs spread concurrently with vaccination behavior, their double-edged impact can lead to self-correction and alignment between vaccine beliefs and behaviors. The results show that coevolution of vaccine beliefs and behaviors makes populations more sensitive to abrupt changes in perceptions of vaccine cost and effectiveness compared to scenarios without beliefs. Our work provides valuable insights into harnessing the social contagion of even vaccine-neutral attitudes to overcome vaccine hesitancy.
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.