failed_experiment.db
← Back to browse

Social Sciences› Health› Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy — Medical-expert-endorsed correction of vaccine misconceptions

Submitted 2026-10-22

Field: Social Sciences › HealthType: No effect foundArea: vaccine hesitancyArea: science communicationTarget: Medical-expert-endorsed correction of vaccine misconceptionsStage: full study

Hypothesis

Correcting common vaccine misconceptions with a correction endorsed by a group of medical experts would raise COVID-19 vaccination intention and actual uptake among UK residents.

What failed

The pre-registered experiment found the intervention did not change participants' attitudes or behaviour towards COVID-19 vaccines during the 2021 vaccination campaign, contrary to a similar study with Italian residents.

Broken assumption

Expert endorsement of a correction shifts vaccine attitudes and uptake, as it appeared to in another country.

Why

The report discusses possible reasons for the null without settling on one.

From the published paper: Panizza et al. Journal of Trial and Error, 2023. ↗CC BY

Research ideas from this failure

Unvetted lead — read the papers

New hypotheses this failure suggests, each with a crucial experiment, a rival explanation of the original result, and the papers it rests on. Written by AI from paper titles and abstracts found on OpenAlex (and Europe PMC, for life and health sciences).

Related failures (4)

Matched on shared genes, mechanisms and ways of failing as well as wording. Each shows why it matched — treat these as leads rather than verdicts.

Links in published research

Where this experiment's genes are known to matter outside its own research area, and the papers behind those links. Sources: Open Targets Platform and Europe PMC.