ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Characteristics of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in university students: Methodological insights from a syndemic perspective.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper offers a methodological critique of the study by AlShurman et al. that examined whether COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (VH) and COVID-19-related factors interact to influence booster dose uptake among university students in Canada from a syndemic perspective. The original cross-sectional survey was conducted among 4453 students at the University of Waterloo in 2024. VH was measured retrospectively for primary doses and concurrently for booster doses, with a change score computed to capture shifts in hesitancy over time. Logistic regression models were used to assess the main effects and interactions on additive and multiplicative scales. While the original study provides a valuable application of syndemic theory, notable limitations warrant caution in interpretation. These include substantial recall bias in the retrospective VH change score, the inability of the cross-sectional design to establish temporal dynamics and bidirectional reinforcement required by syndemic theory, low response rate (approximately 11%) raising concerns about selection bias, dichotomization of key variables, untested linearity of the change score, and potential overinterpretation of statistical interactions as mechanistic syndemic synergy. Unmeasured factors such as student stressors, social media exposure, and psychological reactance may also influence the observed associations. The findings should be interpreted conservatively. Targeted interventions such as rebuilding trust and addressing misinformation remain important. However, stronger longitudinal studies with prospective measurement of hesitancy, mediation analyses, and sensitivity testing are needed to more robustly examine syndemic interactions in vaccine uptake.
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.