Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42214069›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology2026

Online Information Behavior Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Association With Vaccination Behavior Based on Cluster Analysis of User Groups: Cross-Sectional Study.

Lea Liebner, Birgit Babitsch, Lisa Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lea LiebnerDepartment of New Public Health, School of Human Sciences, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.ORCID 0009-0005-4606-4223
Birgit BabitschDepartment of New Public Health, School of Human Sciences, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8722-3332
Lisa SchmidtDepartment of New Public Health, School of Human Sciences, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6063-3983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of effective health communication and reliable information for crisis management, particularly following the introduction of vaccinations. Varied attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and an overwhelming amount of online information complicated communication and pandemic management. Previous studies have often focused on general vaccination behavior and its correlation with vaccination attitudes, establishing a link between information-seeking and vaccination decisions. However, there is insufficient analysis distinguishing specific user groups based on their actual online information behavior regarding COVID-19 vaccination and examining its correlation with vaccination behavior.

objectiveThis study aims to fill this research gap by identifying user groups based on their information behavior and investigating its influence on vaccination uptake.

methodsAs part of the "Internetnutzung zur COVID-19-Impfung" (INCOVI) study, 1000 individuals in Germany were surveyed online (November 26 to December 8, 2021) regarding their internet usage related to COVID-19 vaccination. A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify user groups. Logistic regression analyses were then used to explore correlations among the user groups and their demographic characteristics, readiness to vaccinate, knowledge of vaccination, and health literacy. Additionally, a logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the influence of user groups and other factors on vaccination behavior.

resultsA total of 3 user groups were identified: frequent and critical information evaluators (454/778, 58.4%), who primarily relied on official information sources, exhibited a higher level of health literacy, and were older than the other groups; infrequent and passive recipients (222/778, 28.5%), who rarely sought information actively and were younger than the other groups; and frequent and multichannel, interaction-focused users (102/778, 13.1%), who actively searched across multiple channels and engaged in information exchange. Notably, the user groups did not significantly differ in knowledge or willingness to vaccinate. User group affiliation, knowledge, and health literacy did not significantly influence vaccination behavior. The strongest predictor of vaccination was preexisting willingness to vaccinate. Additionally, women were more likely to be vaccinated than men, and individuals with medium or higher education levels were 6-11 times more likely to be vaccinated compared to those with only a basic level of education.

conclusionsSegmenting the population into different user groups allows for more targeted communication tailored to the specific needs and beliefs of each group. Because these groups stem from observable usage patterns, they constitute a transferable framework for other health topics. For frequent and critical information evaluators, providing well-founded and detailed information on public channels is important. Infrequent and passive recipients benefit from straightforward formats, such as short explanatory videos, while frequent and multichannel, interaction-focused users are better reached through interactive offerings on social media. By specifically targeting these groups, informed decision-making about vaccinations can be supported.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesInformation Seeking BehaviorVaccinationAdolescentAdultCluster AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesDigital MediaFemaleGermanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansInternetMaleCOVID-19 Vaccinescluster analysisCOVID-19 vaccinationinformation-seeking behaviorinternet useuser groups

Identifiers

PMID42214069
PMCPMC13263656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.