ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in Italy: a cross-sectional study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) remains a global threat, exacerbated by socio-political uncertainty. We aimed primarily to estimate VH prevalence in Italy, identifying the most susceptible subgroups, and secondarily to assess whether these patterns varied across VH dimensions. Methods: Cross-sectional survey (web/telephone) among adults in Italy (September 2024-March 2025). The sample (n = 52,094) was nationally representative by age, gender, education, area, municipality size. The primary outcome was VH (score ≥25, adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, aVHS). The secondary outcomes were aVHS subscales "Lack of trust" and "Risk perception". Post-stratification weighting for age, area, and municipality size was applied. Findings: VH prevalence was 46.09% (95% CI: 45.65-46.53%). Multivariable models showed several associations with VH, e.g., gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, health literacy, political and religious orientation, personal experiences, and vaccination support from community figures. Among many subgroups significant after multiple-comparison correction, the strongest differences in VH predicted probability (PP) were estimated among individuals using complementary/alternative medicine (PP = 58.5%), right-aligned (PP = 47.0%) or politically unaffiliated participants (PP = 48.4%), individuals with middle school education (PP = 48.3%), people aged 60-74 (PP = 49.0%), and participants uncertain about healthcare workers' pro-vaccination support (PP = 52.8%). While some groups, e.g., individuals with chronic conditions, inadequate health literacy, or religious participants reported higher perceived risk, others, e.g., non-binary respondents, showed higher lack of trust. Interpretation: This study highlighted the importance of granular data to inform inclusive strategies. Key figures and politics emerged as relevant, deserving further exploration. Future research should evaluate tailored interventions for identified at-risk groups. Funding: NextGenerationEU funding within the Italian Ministry of University and Research PNRR Extended Partnership initiative on Emerging Infectious Diseases.
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.