Correction: Plans-Rubió, P. Vaccines and Vaccination: Feature Papers. Vaccines 2025, 13, 720
Pedro Plans-Rubió
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsImmune responses and vaccinations
The author would like to make the following correction to this publication [1].
In the original publication, one article from the Special Issue was inadvertently omitted:
Limbu, Y.B.; Gautam, R.K. How Well the Constructs of Health Belief Model Predict Vaccination Intention: A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Primary Series and Booster Vaccines. Vaccines 2023, 11, 816.
The author would like to insert this article as the sixth reference in [1], together with the original references [3–5], therefore changing the sentence “studies assessing vaccination hesitancy and vaccination acceptance [3–5]” to “studies assessing vaccination hesitancy and vaccination acceptance [3–6]” in the first paragraph. Following this change, all subsequent references cited in [1] will be reordered.
In the fourth paragraph, the first sentence is changed from “Three articles published in this Special Issue were focused on vaccination acceptance and vaccination hesitancy [3–5]” to “Four articles published in this Special Issue were focused on vaccination acceptance and vaccination hesitancy [3–6]”.
The following paragraph should be inserted as the seventh paragraph:
“The article by Limbu and Gautam [6] presents the results of a systematic review assessing the relationships between Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. This study found that perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues to action were the three most frequent predictors for primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination.”
The author states that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.