ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Factors determining flu vaccination in the over-65s].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- [Flu vaccination in Spain: we still have not improved].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo find the prevalence of flu vaccination and factors affecting the likelihood of being vaccinated.
designObservational, descriptive and cross-sectional study.
settingA district in Health Area III, Asturias, Spain.
participantsPeople of 65 and over selected by simple random sampling from the health card data base. The size of the sample was 386 users, of whom 326 agreed to take part. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: By means of a survey of our own design, conducted by phone interview, the variables gathered were social and personal details, accessibility, personal view of vaccination and attitude to it. A descriptive analysis and population estimates were made, with logistic regression used to identify associated variables.
resultsA 70.6% (95% CI, 65.9-75.2) of the population under study had been vaccinated. The main arguments for non-vaccination were: "don't want to" (35.5%; 95% CI, 25.8-45.2) and enjoyment of good health (34.4%; 95% CI, 24.8-44); 25% (95% CI, 19-30) of the elderly with some chronic pathology were not vaccinated; 92.3% (95% CI, 89.6-95) of those surveyed said they had not been contacted by their Health Centre; 35.7% (95% CI, 30.7-40.7) thought they would catch the flu the same if they were vaccinated; 41.6% (95% CI, 36.6-46.6) did not think so. Logistic regression showed positive association of vaccination and belief in its use (OR=338; 95% CI, 4.48-25084).
conclusionsVaccination coverage in our health district was higher than that found by other studies and matched the figures stated in the programme record system. Raising awareness of the usefulness of vaccination is a strategy to be assessed in relation to increased coverage. We could not show that active phone recruitment affects vaccination at all.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.