ArticleOxford open immunology2026
Scientific communication and vaccine hesitation: an analysis of the editorial line of a great Brazilian newspaper.
Article in Oxford open immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The text critically examines the anti-vaccine editorial line adopted by "Gazeta do Povo", one of Brazil's leading newspapers, and its possible repercussions on vaccine hesitancy in the country. By analyzing headlines published over the course of a year, a trend of misinformation and sensationalism was found, addressing supposed or insignificant risks in relation to COVID-19 vaccines. A structured qualitative document analysis was conducted, based on the systematic retrieval of all vaccine-related headlines published by the newspaper between December 2022 and December 2023. Headlines were collected using predefined search terms relevant to COVID-19 vaccination and assessed according to their scientific accuracy and potential to induce vaccine hesitancy, following WHO and CDC communication guidelines. The analysis highlights how such news, often contradictory to scientific knowledge, can negatively influence the decision-making of citizens concerned about their health and that of their children. The article also highlights the responsibility of the press in disseminating reliable information, as well as the need for effective reactions to the anti-vaccine movement and scientific denialism in Brazil and globally.
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.