Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24013210›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2013

Provider dismissal of vaccine-hesitant families: misguided policy that fails to benefit children.

Douglas S Diekema

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States.American journal of public health · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Douglas S DiekemaDepartment of Pediatrics; University of Washington School of Medicine; Seattle, WA USA; Department of Health Services; University of Washington School of Public Health; Seattle, WA USA; Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics; Seattle Children's Research Institute; Seattle, WA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some health care providers have adopted the policy of refusing to accept into their practices families who refuse to vaccinate their children according to the standard vaccine schedule. While the frustration that drives these policies is understandable, the practice of refusing to see these families is misguided. Such a strategy does not benefit the child or the health of the community, and may have a negative impact on both. Physicians represent the best opportunity to influence the vaccine-hesitant parent, but only if physicians are willing to care for these families will that be possible. Maintaining a relationship of open communication and trust remains the best strategy for addressing the problem of parental vaccine hesitancy.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHealth PolicyTreatment RefusalChildChild, PreschoolHumansImmunization ScheduleVaccinesVaccinesimmunizationparental decision-makingvaccinationvaccine hesitancyvaccine refusal

Identifiers

PMID24013210
PMCPMC4162049

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.