English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Developing effective communication strategies to increase vaccine uptake is crucial in times of increasing vaccine hesitancy and repeated outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Horne et al. (1) conclude from their study that a combination of warnings, an anecdote about a sick child, and pictures thereof are suitable to counter antivaccination attitudes; however, correcting vaccination myths proved unsuccessful. Yet, the study is somewhat fuzzy about what “antivaccination” actually means. It further summarizes different constructs in a single-attitude variable that we believe deserve separate attention. These two considerations led us to reanalyze the study’s data, resulting in the additional, important conclusions outlined below. The sample in Horne et al.’s study is generally provaccination (figure 3 in ref. 1). The authors divide the sample according to the terciles of the distribution. This results in a bottom category—suggesting these are the antivaccinators—that comprises participants with attitude scores …

Don’t try to convert the antivaccinators, instead target the fence-sitters