ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2016
[Not Available].
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Assessment of training of general practice interns in motivational interviews about vaccination.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand parents' representations based on their own lived experiences and their influence on the decision to vaccinate their children.
methodsThis was a qualitative, in-depth, phenomenological study using semi-structured interviews with 14 volunteer parents who have children age-eligible for vaccination. The participants were recruited through family doctors in the Montpellier region (France). The methodology is modeled on grounded theory. The data, collected by audio recording, were analyzed using a semio-pragmatic method that brought forth conceptual categories giving meaning to the phenomenon being studied.
resultsParents are unaware of the diseases for which there are vaccines and express a need for information. A perception of the inequality of the individual in face of the disease and the vaccine greatly influences the parents' vaccination decision. It induces in them a reasoned "sifting" of vaccines and leads them to strike a risk/benefit balance. They trust more in their doctor and their personal experience than in publicized information.
conclusionParents' lack of awareness of diseases, even those for which immunization exists, would suggest a need to better inform parents on this matter. Their perception of the inequality of the individual (their child) in face of the disease and the vaccine is the main determinant in their decision to vaccinate. Parents approach immunization in a thoughtful educated way, influenced by such factors as lifestyle, personal experiences and confidence in their doctor. These results make them very "critical" with regard to basic vaccination recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.