Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26366978›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2015

Vaccination uptake by vaccine-hesitant parents attending a specialist immunization clinic in Australia.

Thomas A Forbes, Alissa McMinn, Nigel Crawford, Julie Leask, Margie Danchin

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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Loss of chance associated with sub-optimal HPV vaccination coverage rate in France.Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas A Forbesa Department of Nephrology ; Royal Children's Hospital ; Parkville , Victoria , Australia.
Alissa McMinnb SAEFVIC and Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group; Murdoch Children's Research Institute ; Parkville , VIC Australia.
Nigel Crawfordb SAEFVIC and Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group; Murdoch Children's Research Institute ; Parkville , VIC Australia.
Julie Leaske School of Public health; University of Sydney ; New South Wales , Australia.
Margie Danchinb SAEFVIC and Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group; Murdoch Children's Research Institute ; Parkville , VIC Australia.
Parks Victoria · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is an issue of global concern. The quality of communication between healthcare providers and parents can influence parental immunization acceptance. We aimed to describe immunization uptake following specialist immunization clinic (SIC) consultation for Australian children of VH parents as a cohort, and according to pre-clinic parental position on immunization. At a single tertiary pediatric SIC (RCH, Melbourne) a retrospective descriptive study classified VH families according to 3 proposed parental positions on immunization at initial clinic attendance. Immunization status at follow up was ascertained via the Australian Children's Immunization Register and National HPV Program Register and compared between groups. Of the VH cohort, 13/38 (34%) families were classified as hesitant, 21 (55%) as late/selective vaccinators and 4 (11%) as vaccine refusers. Mean follow up post-SIC attendance was 14.5 months. For the overall VH cohort, the majority chose selective immunization (42%) following SIC consultation. When analyzed by pre-clinic parental position on immunization, there was a trend for hesitant families to proceed with full immunization, selective families to continue selective immunization and refusing families to remain unimmunised (p < 0.0001). The most commonly omitted vaccines were hepatitis B (66%) and Haemophilus influenzae type B (55%), followed by the meningococcal C conjugate vaccine (53%) and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (53%). Immunization outcome appears to correlate with pre-clinic parental position on immunization for the majority of families attending a SIC in Australia, with selective immunization the most common outcome. Tailored communication approaches based on parental position on immunization may optimise clinic resources and engagement of families, but require prospective research evaluation.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePhysician-Patient RelationsAdolescentAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolCommunicationFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInfantMaleParentsPatient ComplianceRetrospective StudiesTreatment Refusalcommunicationresourcesspecialist immunisation clinicvaccine hesitancyvaccine uptake

Identifiers

PMID26366978
PMCPMC5054782
OpenAlexW2128175765

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.