Vaccination for adults and their children: insights from survey and experimental data.

Yiting Guo, Yan Peng, Lijia Wei

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 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.

Urban-rural and comorbidity-related differences in vaccination attitudes and self-reported adverse events following immunisation in Poland: a cross-sectional primary care study.Frontiers in public health · 2026
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

3 authors.

Yiting Guo *Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.

Yan Peng *College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.

Lijia Wei *Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. ljwei@whu.edu.cn.

Funding

the National Natural Science Foundation of China 72173093the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of CPSF GZB20240397

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines are widely acknowledged as one of the most efficient and effective strategies for preventing diseases. This study, based on two waves of public survey data and complemented by incentivized experiments, investigates how behavioral preferences shape actual decisions to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. By combining these methods, the research aims to enhance both internal and external validity. Our findings indicate that individuals with elevated levels of prosociality show a greater propensity to receive the initial dose of the vaccine, a pattern that holds across both the general public and university students. In contrast, parental decisions regarding child vaccination are significantly associated with greater risk taking and lower omission bias, but not with prosocial preferences.

Indexed as

Omission biasProsocial preferenceRisk preferenceVaccination

Identifiers

PMID41134429

DOI10.1186/s13561-025-00685-w

PMCPMC12553180

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.