ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2025
Females vs. Males: Who makes better vaccination decisions by Monty Hall paradox?
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccine avoidance often results from cognitive misperceptions, such as unfounded fears, leading to decisions that contradict evidence from organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), which states that the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases far outweigh vaccine side effects. The Monty Hall paradox - a probability puzzle - demonstrates how individuals frequently fail to update their decisions when presented with new information, due to cognitive biases and misjudged probabilities. This analogy frames vaccine hesitancy as a failure to correctly interpret and act on updated risk information. This article uses the Monty Hall problem to explain vaccine resistance and examines whether decision-making processes regarding vaccination differ between men and women. A survey-based study was conducted with 300 participants from England, France, and Germany in September 2023. Data were collected by Cint, an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 20252 certified organization specializing in online research, which ensures sample quality through verified respondent information and robust sampling algorithms. Findings indicate that, among men, the likelihood of choosing vaccination increased from 73.3% to 91.5% when shifting from the incorrect to the correct solution of the Monty Hall problem. This effect was not observed among women. These results suggest that integrating probabilistic reasoning models into public education and health campaigns may enhance vaccine uptake, particularly among men. This supports public policy efforts to improve risk literacy by incorporating probability concepts into school curricula, promoting media literacy, and developing decision-support tools for health communication.
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.