Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24686406›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

School-based influenza vaccination: parents' perspectives.

Candace Lind, Margaret L Russell, Judy MacDonald, Ramona Collins, Christine J Frank, Amy E Davis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Candace LindFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Margaret L RussellDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Judy MacDonaldAlberta Health Services and Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ramona CollinsFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Christine J FrankFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Amy E DavisDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchool-age children are important drivers of annual influenza epidemics yet influenza vaccination coverage of this population is low despite universal publicly funded influenza vaccination in Alberta, Canada. Immunizing children at school may potentially increase vaccine uptake. As parents are a key stakeholder group for such a program, it is important to consider their concerns. PURPOSE: We explored parents' perspectives on the acceptability of adding an annual influenza immunization to the immunization program that is currently delivered in Alberta schools, and obtained suggestions for structuring such a program.

participantsForty-eight parents of children aged 5-18 years participated in 9 focus groups. Participants lived in urban areas of the Alberta Health Services Calgary Zone.

findingsThree major themes emerged: Advantages of school-based influenza vaccination (SBIV), Disadvantages of SBIV, and Implications for program design & delivery. Advantages were perceived to occur for different populations: children (e.g. emotional support), families (e.g. convenience), the community (e.g. benefits for school and multicultural communities), the health sector (e.g. reductions in costs due to burden of illness) and to society at large (e.g. indirect conduit of information about health services, building structure for pandemic preparedness, building healthy lifestyles). Disadvantages, however, might also occur for children (e.g. older children less likely to be immunized), families (e.g. communication challenges, perceived loss of parental control over information, choices and decisions) and the education sector (loss of instructional time). Nine second-level themes emerged within the major theme of Implications for program design & delivery: program goals/objectives, consent process, stakeholder consultation, age-appropriate program, education, communication, logistics, immunizing agent, and clinic process.

conclusionsParents perceived advantages and disadvantages to delivering annual seasonal influenza immunizations to children at school. Their input gives a framework of issues to address in order to construct robust, acceptable programs for delivering influenza or other vaccines in schools.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansImmunizationImmunization ProgramsInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareProgram EvaluationResidence CharacteristicsSchool Health ServicesSchoolsInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID24686406
PMCPMC3970961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.