Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27029897›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

Knowledge, risk perception and attitudes toward vaccination among Austrian health care workers: A cross-sectional study.

Nicole Harrison, Alexandra Brand, Christina Forstner, Selma Tobudic, Karin Burgmann, Heinz Burgmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Nicole Harrisona Department of Medicine I , Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria.
Alexandra Brandb Department of Medicine I , Intensive Care Unit, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria.
Christina Forstnera Department of Medicine I , Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria.
Selma Tobudica Department of Medicine I , Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria.
Karin Burgmannb Department of Medicine I , Intensive Care Unit, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria.
Heinz Burgmanna Department of Medicine I , Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the vaccination coverage of Austrian health care workers (HCWs), their knowledge concerning the current guideline on vaccination for HCWs and their attitudes toward vaccination. A cross-sectional survey was performed by distributing 200 questionnaires among the nursing staff of several medical wards and intensive care units of the Vienna General Hospital. 116 questionnaires were returned for analysis with 77.4% female and 22.6% male participants. While certain vaccines like hepatitis B, tetanus and polio had high vaccination rates of up to 94% and good knowledge concerning the vaccination status, other vaccines like measles (59.8%), mumps (60.7%), rubella (70.5%), influenza (42.1%) or pertussis (58.2%) showed much lower coverage. The main sources of information were nursing school (59.1%), secondary school (46.1%), parents (45.2%) and media in general (45.2%). Only 21.9% of HCWs claimed to know the current guideline on vaccination. Those who knew the guideline were significantly more likely to consider certain vaccines like measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, polio and varicella as recommended (p ≤ 0.04). The most important reasons for receiving vaccination were self-protection (87.5%), prevention of epidemics (54.5%), protection of others (55.4%) and of patients (42.9%). Fear of side effects (67.2%), negative experiences with vaccines (22.4%), the additional doctor's appointment (20.7%) and considering vaccines as an invention by the pharmaceutical industry (19%) were hindering factors for vaccination of HCWs. Considering the essential role of HCWs in preventing diseases, this study noted a remarkable lack of information on vaccination in this profession.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelAdultAustriaCross InfectionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitals, GeneralHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationYoung Adultattitudesguidelinehealth care workersvaccinationvaccination coverage

Identifiers

PMID27029897
PMCPMC5027716

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.