Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26510703›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Attitudes of Dutch general practitioners towards vaccinating the elderly: less is more?

Renske Eilers, Paul F M Krabbe, Hester E de Melker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Renske EilersDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, Academic Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. renske.eilers@rivm.nl.
Paul F M KrabbeDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, Academic Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. p.f.m.krabbe@umcg.nl.
Hester E de MelkerCenter for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. hester.de.melker@rivm.nl.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many European countries, vaccinations are offered to the elderly. Expanding the programme to include routine vaccination against pneumococcal disease, herpes zoster, and pertussis, for example, could reduce disease burden amongst the growing population of persons aged 50 years and older. Since most countries involve general practitioners (GPs) in the programmes, the potential success of such new vaccinations depends on the attitude of GPs towards these vaccinations. This qualitative study explores Dutch GPs' attitudes regarding vaccination in general, and their attitudes regarding the incorporation of additional vaccines in the current Dutch influenza vaccination programme.

methodsInterviews were held with ten Dutch GPs (five men and five women) that worked either in an academic hospital, in a practice based in a health center, or in individual practice. All interviews were recorded with a digital voice recorder and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed according to thematic analysis.

resultsGPs perceived prevention as part as their job and believed vaccination to be effective for preventing infectious diseases. However, influenza vaccination was not always perceived as effective. Doubts regarding the usefulness of additional vaccinations were identified. If additional vaccines would be offered, this should be based on scientific evidence and the severity of the infectious disease. Selection of patients for vaccination should not be based solely on age, but more on risk factors. The GP should be the central point of contact for new vaccination campaigns; however, high workload was seen as a concern. Several GPs questioned their ability to refuse to distribute the vaccinations.

conclusionsA positive attitude towards implementing additional vaccinations is not apparent. Achieving the most health benefits seems to be the most important consideration of Dutch GPs regarding vaccinating older adults. Questions regarding the usefulness of vaccinating older adults should be taken into consideration. More research is necessary to confirm the results among a wider range of Dutch GPs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PractitionersHealth Services for the AgedVaccinationAgedEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansInfluenza VaccinesInterviews as TopicMaleNetherlandsQualitative ResearchInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID26510703
PMCPMC4625969
OpenAlexW1929792865

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.