Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12434960›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002

Parental confidence in measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: evidence from vaccine coverage and attitudinal surveys.

Mary E Ramsay, J Yarwood, D Lewis, H Campbell, J M White

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The big picture in addressing vaccine hesitancy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014
    Article
  4. Outbreak of mumps in a school setting, United Kingdom, 2013.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Has the UK government lost the battle over MMR?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005
    Article
  9. Predicting uptake of MMR vaccination: a prospective questionnaire study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
    Article
  10. Managing controversy through consultation: a qualitative study of communication and trust around MMR vaccination decisions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Taking a closer look: an examination of measles, mumps, and rubella immunization uptake in Saskatoon.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mary E RamsayImmunisation Division, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London. MRamsay@phls.org.uk
J Yarwood
D Lewis
H Campbell
J M White

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine has been the focus of considerable adverse publicity in recent years.

aimTo describe recent trends in parental attitudes to, and coverage of, MMR vaccine. DESIGN OF STUDY: Routine surveillance of vaccine coverage and cross-sectional surveys of parental attitudes.

settingAll health authorities in England (vaccine coverage) and 132 enumeration districts in England (attitude survey).

methodQuarterly MMR vaccine coverage for all resident children in England at two years of age was requested from computerised child health information systems. Data was also obtained from 26 English health authorities/trusts on MMR coverage at 16 months of age. The proportion of mothers who believed that MMR vaccine was safe or carried only a slight risk, and the proportion who intended to fully vaccinate any future children, was obtained from biannual interviews with a national representative sample of over 1000 mothers of children under three years of age.

resultsVaccine coverage at two years of age fell 8.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.4 to 8.8) between April and June 1995 and between April and June 2001. In September 2001, 67% of mothers reported that the MMR vaccine was safe or carried only a slight risk and 92% of mothers agreed with the statement: 'If I had another child in the future I would have them fully immunised against all childhood diseases'.

conclusionsDespite considerable adverse publicity, the fall in MMR coverage has been relatively small, mothers' attitudes to MMR remain positive, and most continue to seek advice on immunisation from health professionals. As the vast majority of mothers are willing to have future children fully immunised, we believe that health professionals should be able to use the available scientific evidence to help to maintain MMR coverage.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandHumansMothersVaccinationMeasles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID12434960
PMCPMC1314443
OpenAlexW2136335180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.