Loading
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy · Journal article
The Journal of Immunology · July 28, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This cross-sectional survey of 11,153 undergraduate students found science majors (SM) held more positive and correct vaccine beliefs than non-science majors (NSM) on multiple items, including vaccine benefit–risk perception (57% vs 37% strongly agree; p=0.05) and rejection of the vaccine–autism myth (62% vs 38% strongly disagree; p=0.05). The results suggest vaccine literacy differs by educational background and highlight gaps even among science students, but the observational design cannot determine causation or whether education drives these differences.
Cross-sectional anonymous survey. Undergraduate students classified as science majors (SM) or non-science majors (NSM); anonymous respondents, setting not specified.. Compared with: Non-science majors compared against science majors; no external control or intervention group.. n = 11,153.
57% of science majors strongly agreed vaccines' benefits exceed risks versus 37% of non-science majors (p=0.05) 62% of science majors strongly disagreed that vaccines cause autism versus 38% of non-science majors (p=0.05) 50.5% of science majors but only 31.8% of non-science majors agreed that flu vaccine does not cause flu (p=0.05)
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The findings suggest that vaccine literacy varies substantially by educational background and that even science-trained individuals harbour gaps in vaccine knowledge. Educators should consider explicit, evidence-based instruction in vaccine science and myth-debunking as part of standard curricula to strengthen public trust and counter misinformation.
Cross-sectional survey showing differences in vaccine literacy between science and non-science majors, with no intervention or comparator group, limited by observational design and inability to establish causation or generalizability.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
The findings suggest that vaccine literacy varies substantially by educational background and that even science-trained individuals harbour gaps in vaccine knowledge. Educators should consider explicit, evidence-based instruction in vaccine science and myth-debunking as part of standard curricula to strengthen public trust and counter misinformation.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
Abstract Introduction The current 92% kindergartner vaccination coverage, central to disease/death prevention, has decreased from last year, with rising nonmedical exemptions, likely driven by widespread misinformation and myths. Public polling shows some parents trust non-medical influencers over public-health experts. Strengthening immunology literacy across undergraduate, graduate, and clinical education supports critical thinking, evidence-based interpretation, and credible source evaluation. Methods An IRB-approved, anonymous assessment (n = 11,153) across science (SM) and non-science (NSM) majors. Results Results showed that, while SM had more positive and correct vaccine beliefs, like only 37% NSM noted strongly agree to “Vaccine benefits, in general, are larger than their risks”, in contrast (p = 0.05) to 57% SM, but many were not sure. Similar results were obtained from “vaccines cause autism” with 62% of SM strongly disagreeing vs 38% NSM (p = 0.05). The value of vaccine discussions in science classes was evident from inaccuracies, like “Mercury is a component in childhood vaccines” where more SM than NSM disagreed (mercury-based thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 1998), indicating the effectiveness of teaching vaccine literacy in a misinformation era. Overall data revealed that even SM could benefit from more formal discussion of myths and misinformation, as only 50.5% of SM agreed with “You do not think that you can get the flu from the flu vaccine” (vs 31.8% NSM, p = 0,05). Conclusion Strengthening immunology training equips learners to evaluate scientific evidence, identify credible sources, and counter vaccine misinformation. Persistent gaps among both science and non-science majors highlight the need for more explicit instruction in debunking myths. Vaccine literacy education that emphasizes critical source evaluation, evidence-based reasoning, and applied strategies such as role-playing is essential to sustaining vaccine confidence and public trust. Funding Source n/a Topic Categories Vaccines and Immunotherapy (VAC)
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.