ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2007
MMR: marginalised, misrepresented and rejected? Autism: a focus group study.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 5 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Vaccines and autism: a preliminary qualitative study on the beliefs of concerned mothers in Italy.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine controversy impacted on the lives of parents caring for children with autism.
designQualitative focus group study.
settingUnited Kingdom. PATIENTS: A purposively selected sample of 38 parents took part in 10 focus group discussions between March 2003 and May 2005.
resultsMany parents felt that the MMR vaccine could be too potent for children who are susceptible to developing autism. Of the parents whose children received the MMR vaccine, many felt guilty that they may have caused or contributed to their child's autism. Some parents felt frustrated by health professionals' lack of understanding of the negative impact the MMR controversy has had on them. Some parents were anxious about subsequent MMR decision-making for their children.
conclusionsThe controversy has had a negative impact on some parents of children with autism. This has implications for health professionals, who need to be particularly aware of the issues these parents face in future MMR decision-making for their affected child and younger siblings. It is anticipated that these findings will raise awareness among health professionals of the difficulties faced by such parents. More generally, there is a need to promote a greater awareness of the important role health visitors can play in parental decision-making and for research examining whether health professionals feel they receive sufficient training in communication skills. It is also essential that the latest scientific research findings are disseminated quickly to these parents and to those health professionals advising parents on matters of vaccine safety.
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.