Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Using a mental model approach to undercut the effects of exposure to mRNA vaccination misconceptions: Two randomized trials.
Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 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.
- QnAs with Kathleen Hall Jamieson.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although messenger RNA (mRNA) technology revolutionized vaccine creation, its use is threatened by unwarranted fear that DNA left over from the vaccine manufacturing process could integrate into recipients' DNA, increasing cancer and heritable risks. Drawing on the mental model theory of reasoning, our two preregistered interventions undercut these problematic conclusions. They do so by testing the effectiveness of two mental model-based interventions juxtaposing problematic claims with visualized or verbally explained models of basic biological and vaccination systems. Study 1: a) graphically modeled how mRNA COVID-19 vaccination works (Model 1); b) verbally modeled ways in which cells protect themselves from foreign DNA (Model 2); and c) provided ancillary material designed to bolster perceptions of mRNA vaccination safety. Study 2 deployed an animation of the cell-protection model (Model 2), alone, and in combination with Study 1's messaging. Neither the mRNA vaccine nor the DNA protection model explicitly acknowledged the problematic DNA-integration claim. Both preemptive (before) and rebuttal (after) positioning of the models were effective. Within-person analyses suggested that preemptive positioning may be somewhat more effective than rebuttal positioning. Some positive effects of exposure to the modeled knowledge messaging condition in Study 1 persisted 2 mo after exposure.
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.