Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27176822›Full record

Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of pregnant women approached to participate in a Tdap maternal immunization randomized, controlled trial.

Donna M MacDougall, Beth A Halperin, Joanne M Langley, Shelly A McNeil, Donna MacKinnon-Cameron, Li Li, Scott A Halperin

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Donna M MacDougalla Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Beth A Halperina Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Joanne M Langleya Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Shelly A McNeila Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Donna MacKinnon-Camerona Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Li Lia Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Scott A Halperina Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre · CADalhousie University · CANova Scotia Health Authority · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunization with pertussis vaccine during pregnancy is recommended in a number of countries to prevent newborn deaths from whooping cough. In some jurisdictions, vaccine uptake during pregnancy is low. We undertook a survey of the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of pregnant women who had been approached to participate in a randomized, controlled trial of tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy. A total of 346 women completed the survey. Knowledge about pertussis and pertussis vaccine was generally low; the mean number of correct answers was 10.65 out of 19 questions. Attitudes toward maternal immunization were generally favorable; 51.7%-94.7% of women had positive responses to 10 attitudinal statements. Substantial uncertainty was shown in responses to a number of the attitudinal statements related to vaccination during pregnancy; 22.3%-45.7% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements. Importantly, 89% of women reported that they would get immunized with pertussis vaccine during pregnancy if their physician recommended it. We conclude that a national recommendation to be immunized with pertussis vaccine during pregnancy supported by their physicians' recommendation would be well received by Canadian women.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultCanadaDiphtheriaDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesFemaleHumansImmunizationInfant, NewbornMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnant PeopleSurveys and QuestionnairesTetanusWhooping CoughDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccinesknowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviorsmaternal immunizationpertussispertussis vaccinesurvey

Identifiers

PMID27176822
PMCPMC4962967
OpenAlexW2371735899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.