ArticlePLOS global public health2026
A cross-sectional survey of false beliefs about COVID-19 and their association with vaccine hesitancy and uptake in the United States and China.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines fuel vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The prevalence of false beliefs contributes to differences in vaccine hesitancy across the US and China. We present cross sectional research assessing false beliefs about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine, and both vaccine/booster status and hesitancy in the US and China. We compared these variables across US (n = 454) and Chinese (n = 456) participants. Additionally, we use regression analyses to assess the relative association between false beliefs about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine/booster hesitancy and uptake. The likelihood of receiving an initial vaccine was greater in China than the US (OR = 346.50, p < 0.001), and false beliefs about COVID-19 were associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving an initial vaccine (OR = 0.82, p = 0.05). The likelihood of receiving booster was just over three times greater in China than the US (OR = 3.45, p < 0.001) and false beliefs about COVID-19 were not associated with the likelihood of receiving a booster (OR = 0.92, p = 0.33). Vaccine hesitancy is more likely in the US than China (eB = 0.85, p < 0.001) and false beliefs about COVID-19 are positively associated with vaccine hesitancy (eB = 1.20, p < 0.01). There was significant interaction between country and false beliefs (eB = 0.93, p = 0.02). Booster hesitancy is more likely in the US than China (eB = 0.95, p = 0.04) and false beliefs about COVID-19 are positively associated with booster hesitancy (eB = 1.15, p < 0.001). False beliefs about COVID-19 were associated with attitudes (vaccine hesitancy) but not behaviors (vaccine status). Additionally, we found that the strength of the association between false beliefs and attitudes differed between the two countries. Trusted resources to combat false beliefs, that are tailored to the local context, could help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.
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.