ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2026
Evaluation of a Medical Student Workshop on Confronting Vaccine Hesitancy: A Mixed Methods Approach.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Undergraduate medical education provides limited formal training on vaccine hesitancy. This study evaluated a student-led workshop for third-year medical students on vaccine hesitancy, emphasizing historical mistrust in Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities and strategies to build confidence in addressing it. Methods: During a family medicine clerkship rotation, 158 students completed a 90-minute workshop on vaccine hesitancy. The session addressed systemic racism and introduced three evidence-based communication tools, followed by role-play practice. At the end of the clerkship, semistructured focus groups explored the intervention's impact on participants' approaches to vaccine hesitancy. Students also completed pre- and postworkshop surveys to assess attitudes, confidence, and skills regarding vaccine hesitancy. Results: Focus group analysis revealed five major themes: (1) variability in formal education addressing vaccine hesitancy; (2) the workshop's positive impact on students' skills, knowledge and confidence surrounding vaccine hesitancy; (3) opportunities to improve vaccine hesitancy education; (4) barriers to vaccine acceptance and administration; and (5) the value of student-led workshops and peer learning. Survey results demonstrated a statistically significant increase in students self-reported confidence in the ability to influence vaccine-hesitant individuals, educate patients on vaccination benefits, communicate effectively with hesitant patients, and dispel common vaccine myths ( Conclusion: Medical students receive limited formal education in vaccine hesitancy. Preliminary results suggest that this student-led workshop effectively increased students' confidence in addressing vaccine-hesitant patients and their awareness of vaccine hesitancy in BIPOC and other minority communities. Other institutions could adapt similar curricula for health professional students, trainees, or clinicians.
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.