Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27048260›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2016

Stakeholders' opinions and questions regarding the anticipated malaria vaccine in Tanzania.

Sally Mtenga, Angela Kimweri, Idda Romore, Ali Ali, Amon Exavery, Elisa Sicuri, Marcel Tanner, Salim Abdulla, John Lusingu, Shubi Kafuruki

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Sally MtengaIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. smtenga@ihi.or.tz.
Angela KimweriIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Idda RomoreIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Ali AliIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Amon ExaveryIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Elisa SicuriISGlobal, Barcelona Centre International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Marcel TannerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Salim AbdullaIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
John LusinguNational Institute for Medical Research Institute (NIMR), Tanga, Tanzania.
Shubi KafurukiIfakara Health Institute (IHI), P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Ifakara Health Institute · TZNational Institute for Medical Research · TZSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CHUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin the context of combined interventions, malaria vaccine may provide additional value in malaria prevention. Stakeholders' perspectives are thus critical for informed recommendation of the vaccine in Tanzania. This paper presents the views of stakeholders with regards to malaria vaccine in 12 Tanzanian districts.

methodsQuantitative and qualitative methods were employed. A structured questionnaire was administered to 2123 mothers of under five children. Forty-six in-depth interviews and 12 focus group discussions were conducted with teachers, religious leaders, community health workers, health care professionals, and scientists. Quantitative data analysis involved frequency distributions and cross tabulations using Chi square test to determine the association between malaria vaccine acceptability and independent variables. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

resultsOverall, 84.2% of the mothers had perfect acceptance of malaria vaccine. Acceptance varied significantly according to religion, occupation, tribe and region (p < 0.001). Ninety two percent reported that they will accept the malaria vaccine despite the need to continue using insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), while 88.4% reported that they will accept malaria vaccine even if their children get malaria less often than non-vaccinated children. Qualitative results revealed that the positive opinions towards malaria vaccine were due to a need for additional malaria prevention strategies and expectations that the vaccine will reduce visits to the health facility, deaths, malaria episodes and treatment-related expenses. Vaccine related questions included its side effects, efficacy, protective duration, composition, interaction with other medications, provision schedule, availability to the pregnant women, mode of administration (oral or injection?) and whether a child born of HIV virus or with a chronic illness will be eligible for the vaccine?

conclusionStakeholders had high acceptance and positive opinions towards the combined use of the anticipated malaria vaccine and ITNs, and that their acceptance remains high even when the vaccine may not provide full protection, this is a crucial finding for malaria vaccine policy decisions in Tanzania. An inclusive communication strategy should be designed to address the stakeholders' questions through a process that should engage and be implemented by communities and health care professionals. Social cultural aspects associated with vaccine acceptance should be integrated in the communication strategy.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalariaMalaria VaccinesMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTanzaniaYoung AdultMalaria VaccinesMalaria vaccineOpinionsQuestionsStakeholdersTanzania

Identifiers

PMID27048260
PMCPMC4822277
OpenAlexW2330578066

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.