ArticleBMC public health2024
Examining the role of knowledge and trust on vaccine confidence in North Dakota among university students, faculty, and staff.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundVaccination is one of the greatest tools for individuals to stay healthy. Individuals are, however, often exposed to misinformation via digital and social media, and thus, may miss the opportunity to develop scientific knowledge about vaccines and trust in relevant stakeholders. This has a damaging impact on vaccine confidence. Understanding vaccine confidence is particularly important in North Dakota, where vaccination rates are lower than national averages.
objectivesThe objectives of this research are to examine the association between vaccine confidence and three potential sources of it, namely, trust, vaccine knowledge, and vaccine information sources and to investigate the relative strength of three vaccine confidence sources, while accounting for covariates.
methodsStudents (n = 517, 56.6%) and staff and faculty (n = 397, 43.4%) at the University of North Dakota (n = 914) completed an online survey. Logistic regressions estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations among trust in doctors, family/friends, government health agencies, charitable organizations, and religious organizations, vaccine knowledge, vaccine information sources as well as vaccine confidence, accounting for gender, race, marital status, age, religion, political ideology, education, and health status.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 29.43 years (SD = 13.48). Most were females (71.6%) and white (91.5%). Great trust in doctors (OR = 3.29, p < 0.001, 95%CI 1.89, 5.73) government health agencies (OR = 2.95, p < 0.001, 95%CI 2.13, 4.08) and vaccine knowledge (OR = 1.28, p < 0.001, 95%CI 1.18, 1.38) had higher odds of vaccine confidence. Using Internet Government source as the primary source of vaccine information (OR = 1.73, p < 0.05, 95%CI 1.22, 2.44) showed higher odds of vaccine confidence before all independent variables were introduced, but it became non-significant after they were introduced. Trust in government health agencies showed strongest associations with vaccine confidence.
conclusionMultiple stakeholders are necessary to ensure verified, accessible, and accurate information in order to advance vaccine confidence in rural, conservative areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.