Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26328551›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Addressing issues of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination decision-making: a qualitative study.

Marta Fadda, Miriam K Depping, Peter J Schulz

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Encountering Parents Who Are Hesitant or Reluctant to Vaccinate Their Children: A Meta-Ethnography.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marta FaddaInstitute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Lugano, Via G. Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland. marta.fadda@usi.ch.
Miriam K DeppingInstitute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Lugano, Via G. Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland. miriam.katharina.depping@usi.ch.
Peter J SchulzInstitute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Lugano, Via G. Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland. peter.schulz@usi.ch.
Università della Svizzera italiana · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether or not to vaccinate one's child is one of the first health-related decisions parents have to make after their child's birth. For the past 20 years, the share of parents choosing not to immunize their children has increased in many countries, for various reasons. Among these, rumors affirming that vaccinations contain dangerous chemicals or might trigger severe chronic diseases have negatively affected parental attitudes towards pediatric immunizations, particularly the vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), raising a number of public health concerns. The primary aim of this qualitative study is to understand what drives parents' decision, giving special attention to vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in such a context.

methodsTwenty individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland) between January and June 2014. Participants were either mothers or fathers of children less than 1 year old living in Switzerland. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify the main themes with regard to vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the MMR vaccination decision-making.

resultsParents' reports yielded four main themes: (a) the paradox of the free choice, referring to the misinterpretation of current vaccination policies; (b) giving up the power, pointing at the outcomes of a low perceived competence; (c) a far-reaching decision, reflecting the importance attributed to the MMR choice and the different levels of impact the decision can have; (d) the demand for shared-decision making, referring to the parental needs in relation to the child's healthcare provider.

conclusionUnderstanding what drives parents' management of their children's immunization schedule in terms of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment can help health professionals to communicate more effectively with parents in order to facilitate an informed decision, and stakeholders to design tailored health education programs and materials. This can ultimately help increase the coverage of the MMR vaccination.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth LiteracyAdultDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansImmunization ScheduleInfantMaleMeaslesMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineMumpsParent-Child RelationsParentingParentsQualitative ResearchMeasles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID26328551
PMCPMC4556054
OpenAlexW2150675214

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.