Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41915389›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

COVID-19 Vaccine Framing and Acceptance Among Adults Who Are Vaccine Hesitant.

Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy, Ye Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 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

2 authors.

Parthasarathy KrishnamurthyC. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Ye HuC. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Autonomy concerns represent one of many contributors to vaccine hesitancy, yet public health messaging often emphasizes government compliance. It is important to study whether alternative message framing is associated with stated vaccine acceptance among hesitant individuals. Objective: To evaluate whether framing vaccines as freedom enhancing is associated with higher vaccine acceptance among vaccine hesitant adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional online discrete choice experiment was conducted from May 1 to 4, 2024. Each respondent completed 12 choice tasks comparing 2 vaccine options and a no-vaccine option, with vaccines described by 6 attributes, including infection prevention and severe disease protection efficacy, minor and major adverse effects, duration of protection, and additional reason to take (message framing). Exposures: Three levels for message framing, including government compliance (reference), personal freedom, and protect others. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hesitancy was measured using vaccine concerns and the Vaccine Adverse Belief Index (VABI). Main outcomes were vaccine preference shifts and estimated vaccine uptake associated with message framing variations examined using hierarchical bayesian analysis, with vaccine concerns and VABI serving as second-level factors. Results: A total of 907 adults (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [11.0] years; 454 female [50.3%]) participated in the study. Among respondents with high vaccine concern, freedom framing was associated with a preference shift of 33.8 percentage points (95% credible interval [CrI], 21.5-45.8 percentage points) and an increase in uptake of 6.3 percentage points (95% CrI, 2.9-11.5 percentage points), assuming the most favorable vaccine profile (highest efficacy, lowest adverse effects, longest duration). Among respondents with a high VABI, freedom framing was associated with a preference shift of 27.7 percentage points (95% CrI, 14.5-40.5 percentage points) and an increase in uptake of 4.6 percentage points (95% CrI, 1.8-8.8), respectively. Respondents with low vaccine concern or VABI showed no significant preference shifts associated with framing. In contrast, protect-others framing was associated with positive preference shifts and uptake, with no evidence that these associations differed by vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that compared with government recommendation framing, freedom framing was selectively associated with higher vaccine acceptance among adults who were vaccine hesitant. Protect-others framing was associated with higher vaccine acceptance regardless of hesitancy level. Absolute gains in acceptance were modest. These findings highlight how autonomy-consistent framing may influence stated vaccine preferences among hesitant adults.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesPatient Acceptance of Health CareVaccination HesitancyAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID41915389
PMCPMC13040398

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.