Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25483489›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2014

Attitude toward immunization and risk perception of measles, rubella, mumps, varicella, and pertussis in health care workers working in 6 hospitals of Florence, Italy 2011.

Cristina Taddei, Vega Ceccherini, Giuditta Niccolai, Barbara Rita Porchia, Sara Boccalini, Miriam Levi, Emilia Tiscione, Maria Grazia Santini, Simonetta Baretti, Paolo Bonanni and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Dengue vaccine acceptance and willingness to pay.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Barriers for vaccination of healthcare workers.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Cristina Taddeia Department of Health Sciences; Section of Hygiene; Preventive Medicine and Public Health ; University of Florence ; Florence , Italy.
Vega Ceccherini
Giuditta Niccolai
Barbara Rita Porchia
Sara Boccalini
Miriam Levi
Emilia Tiscione
Maria Grazia Santini
Simonetta Baretti
Paolo Bonanni
Angela Bechini
General Department of Preventive Medicine · VNDepartment of Medical Sciences · BYUniversity of Florence · ITFlorence (Netherlands) · NLMinistère de la Santé et de l'Hygiène Publique · ML

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care workers (HCWs) are at risk of infection and transmission of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases. In recent years cases of measles or varicella in health care workers were observed with increasing frequency. The aim of our study was to investigate attitude toward immunization and risk perception of measles, rubella, mumps, varicella, and pertussis in HCWs working in 6 hospitals of Florence (Italy).

methodsA cross-sectional survey among the physicians, nurses, midwives, and nursing assistants working in selected departments was performed trough a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire. Overall, 600 questionnaires were sent and 436 HCWs' completed forms were included into the study (Participation rate: 72.7%). Data were analyzed with STATA 11.0® and odds ratio (OR) were calculated in a multivariate analysis.

resultsAmong all respondents 74.9% were females. The average age was nearly 43-years-old (42.9-SD 8.95). The majority of participants (58.6%) were nurses, 21.3% physicians, 12.9% nursing assistants, and 7.2% were midwives. Among those HCWs reporting no history of disease, 52.8% (95% CI: 42.0-63.3%) declared to have been immunized for measles, 46.9% for rubella (95% CI: 39.0-54.9%), 21.6% for mumps (95% CI: 15.1-29.4%), 14.9% for varicella (95% CI: 7.4-25.7%), and 14.5% for pertussis (95% CI: 10.0-20.0%). When considering potentially susceptible HCWs (without history of disease or vaccination and without serological confirmation), less than a half of them feel at risk for the concerned diseases and only less than 30% would undergo immunization. One of the main reasons of the relatively low coverage was indeed lack of active offer of vaccines.

conclusionAttitudes toward immunization observed in this study are generally positive for preventing some infectious diseases (i.e., measles and rubella), but relatively poor for others (i.e., varicella). More information should be made available to HCWs on the benefits of vaccination and efforts to encourage vaccination uptake should be performed. Educational program on the risk of being infected working in a hospital should be implemented in order to increase the risk perception toward infectious diseases among HCWs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelAdultCross InfectionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalsHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationVirus DiseasesEU, EuropeanHCW, Health Care WorkerHCWs immunizationhealth care workers (HCWs)measlesmumpspertussisrisk perceptionrubellaSD, standard deviationvaccine preventable diseasesvaricellaVPD, vaccine preventable diseaseVZV, varicella zoster virus

Identifiers

PMID25483489
PMCPMC4977449
OpenAlexW2033928499

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.