Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24406315›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2014

Consumer reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI): identifying predictors of reporting an AEFI.

Adriana Parrella, Michael Gold, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Peter Baghurst, Helen Marshall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Parental Declaration of Adverse Event Following Immunization in a Cross-Sectional Study in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Consumer reporting of adverse events following immunization.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014
    Article
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

5 authors.

Adriana ParrellaDiscipline of Paediatrics; School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health; University of Adelaide; Adelaide, Australia.
Michael GoldDiscipline of Paediatrics; School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health; University of Adelaide; Adelaide, Australia.
Annette Braunack-MayerSchool of Population Health; University of Adelaide; Adelaide, Australia.
Peter BaghurstDiscipline of Paediatrics; School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health; University of Adelaide; Adelaide, Australia.
Helen MarshallDiscipline of Paediatrics; School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health; University of Adelaide; Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Passive reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) by consumers or healthcare professionals is the primary mechanism for post-marketing surveillance of vaccine safety. Although recent initiatives have promoted consumer reporting, there is a lack of research concerning consumer reporters. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted in 2011 of a cross-sectional, random, general population sample of 191 South Australian parents who stated that their children had previously experienced an AEFI. We compared awareness of surveillance, vaccine safety opinions, and demographics of parents reporting an AEFI to either healthcare professionals or surveillance authorities with those who did not report their children's AEFI. Multivariate regression analyses measured: the association between reporting and safety views; and demographic predictors of reporting an AEFI. Reporting an AEFI to a healthcare professional or a surveillance authority was not significantly associated with awareness of a surveillance system. AEFI reporters, when compared with non-reporters, were more likely to be Australian-born (OR = 4.58, [1.64, 12.78], P = 0.004); were associated with the perception that a serious reaction was more likely to occur at their children's last immunization (OR = 2.54 [95%CI 1.22, 5.30], P = 0.013); and were less accepting of the risk of febrile convulsion, (OR = 3.59 [95%CI 1.50, 8.57], P = 0.004). Although reporting an AEFI was not associated with awareness of surveillance or most socio-demographics, the results suggest some difference in safety opinions. Further studies are required to ascertain if these differences pre-date the occurrence of an AEFI or are a consequence of the AEFI and how consumers can contribute further to vaccine safety surveillance.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAdolescentAdultAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansImmunizationInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingSelf ReportYoung Adultadverse event following immunizationhealth surveyparentsurveillancevaccine safety attitudes

Identifiers

PMID24406315
PMCPMC4130288

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.