aceModerate evidence
Published recordHealthThe Trace
More
Effectiveness of chatbots in increasing uptake, intention, and attitudes related to any type of vaccination: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2722raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 460a90ac9187…check it
This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed and summarized the growing literature on the effectiveness of chatbot-delivered interventions in increasing uptake, intention, and attitudes related to any type of vaccination. We identified randomized controlled studies (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and non-experimental studies from the following platforms: PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Global Health, APA PsycInfo, and EMBASE databases. A total of 12 eligible studies published from 2019 to 2023 were ana…
57Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
56Problem side
The gain
A meta-analysis of six randomized trials found chatbot interventions improved vaccination attitudes (pooled SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.55), and one trial found a tailored chatbot lifted flu vaccine uptake among older adults to 50.5% versus 35.3%.
The problem
The same meta-analysis of six randomized trials found no significant effect of chatbots on vaccination intentions (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.34, p = 0.38), so attitude gains did not clearly lead to intent to get vaccinated.
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
The authors say further evidence is needed for a more precise conclusion; only six randomized trials could be pooled and the intention estimate had a wide confidence interval spanning zero.
Sources
1 on file- Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Beingdoi:10.1111/aphw.12564
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Vaccination intention with chatbot interventions
SMD 0.11 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.34)
The review’s own words
We found a non-significant trivial effect of chatbot interventions on improving intentions of vaccination (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.13, 0.34, p = 0.38).
Overall vaccination attitude change with chatbot interventions
SMD 0.34 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.55)
The review’s own words
The pooled standard mean difference (SMD) of overall attitude change was 0.34 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.13, 0.55, p = 0.001).
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2722, v1: “Effectiveness of chatbots in increasing uptake, intention, and attitudes related to any type of vaccination: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2722 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 460a90ac91876ca6…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2722 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.