Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26110454›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2015

Community awareness, use and preference for pandemic influenza vaccines in Pune, India.

Neisha Sundaram, Vidula Purohit, Christian Schaetti, Abhay Kudale, Saju Joseph, Mitchell G Weiss

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Neisha Sundarama Department of Epidemiology and Public Health ; Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute ; Basel , Switzerland.
Vidula Purohitd Centre for Health Research and Development; The Maharashtra Association of Anthropological Sciences ; Pune , Maharashtra , India.
Christian Schaettia Department of Epidemiology and Public Health ; Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute ; Basel , Switzerland.
Abhay Kudaled Centre for Health Research and Development; The Maharashtra Association of Anthropological Sciences ; Pune , Maharashtra , India.
Saju Josephd Centre for Health Research and Development; The Maharashtra Association of Anthropological Sciences ; Pune , Maharashtra , India.
Mitchell G Weissa Department of Epidemiology and Public Health ; Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute ; Basel , Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHCentre for Research and Development · ZWMaharashtra Association of Anthropological Sciences · INNational University of Singapore · SGSavitribai Phule Pune University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination is a cornerstone of influenza prevention, but limited vaccine uptake was a problem worldwide during the 2009-2010 pandemic. Community acceptance of a vaccine is a critical determinant of its effectiveness, but studies have been confined to high-income countries. We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-method study in urban and rural Pune, India in 2012-2013. Semi-structured explanatory model interviews were administered to community residents (n = 436) to study awareness, experience and preference between available vaccines for pandemic influenza. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews complemented the survey. Awareness of pandemic influenza vaccines was low (25%). Some respondents did not consider vaccines relevant for adults, but nearly all (94.7%), when asked, believed that a vaccine would prevent swine flu. Reported vaccine uptake however was 8.3%. Main themes identified as reasons for uptake were having heard of a death from swine flu, health care provider recommendation or affiliation with the health system, influence of peers and information from media. Reasons for non-use were low perceived personal risk, problems with access and cost, inadequate information and a perceived lack of a government mandate endorsing influenza vaccines. A majority indicated a preference for injectable over nasal vaccines, especially in remote rural areas. Hesitancy from a lack of confidence in pandemic influenza vaccines appears to have been less of an issue than access, complacency and other sociocultural considerations. Recent influenza outbreaks in 2015 highlight a need to reconsider policy for routine influenza vaccination while paying attention to sociocultural factors and community preferences for effective vaccine action.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedRural PopulationInfluenza Vaccinescommunity studyIndiainfluenzamixed-methodspandemicvaccine hesitancyvaccine uptake

Identifiers

PMID26110454
PMCPMC4635903
OpenAlexW1848649026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.