ArticlePloS one2026
Age and vaccine information sources drive vaccine hesitancy: A household survey in Central-Western Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decades, the decline in vaccination coverage has garnered global attention, and the impact of vaccine hesitancy has become a significant concern for public health policymakers worldwide. This study aims to measure vaccine hesitancy and its associated factors among residents of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. From September 2022 to October 2023, a cross-sectional study aligned with a household survey was conducted to measure vaccination coverage among residents of Campo Grande municipality in Brazil. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using the WHO. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy were classified under the 3C conceptual model of vaccine hesitancy determinants. Descriptive statistics were employed to characterize the study population, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between hesitant and non-hesitant participants and the study variables. We included 467 households in the study, with a total of 518 participants interviewed. Over half of the participants hesitated to get vaccinated (50.2%), with the COVID-19 vaccines being the most hesitated (55.4%). The majority of reported reasons for hesitancy were related to a lack of confidence (62.3%). The hesitant participants in our study were younger than the non-hesitant participants (aOR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97, 0.99), were less likely to believe that vaccines could protect themselves and their children from serious diseases (aOR = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.66), and were less likely to get information from healthcare workers or official health organizations' online profiles (aOR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.86). We observed a high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in Campo Grande. The results highlight the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the infodemic in increasing negative feelings about vaccines.
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.