ArticlePloS one2016
Intention to Accept Pertussis Vaccination for Cocooning: A Qualitative Study of the Determinants.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaccine preferences and their role for vaccine confidence and uptake: a meta-ethnography.Global health action · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- A Parent-Facing Decision Aid About Childhood Vaccination: Co-development Study Adapting a Shared Decision-Making Approach to Support Evidence-Guided Decision-Making.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Factors influencing healthcare professionals' confidence in vaccination in Europe: a literature review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Review
- Psychosocial and organizational barriers and facilitators of meningococcal vaccination (MenACWY) acceptance among adolescents and parents during the Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- College students' sleep difficulty during COVID-19 and correlated stressors: A large-scale cross-sessional survey study.Sleep epidemiology · 2021Article
- Implementation science in maternity care: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Decision-making on maternal pertussis vaccination among women in a vaccine-hesitant religious group: Stages and needs.PloS one · 2020Article
- Attributes influencing parental decision-making to receive the Tdap vaccine to reduce the risk of pertussis transmission to their newborn - outcome of a cross-sectional conjoint experiment in Spain and Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextSeveral countries have reported a resurgence of pertussis in the last decades. This puts infants (especially <6 months) at risk of severe complications, because they are too young to be fully protected by vaccination. The global pertussis initiative has proposed pertussis vaccination of young infants' close contacts, in order to reduce pertussis transmission and the burden of the disease on infants. Our aim is to explore the perceived determinants (barriers and facilitators) of intention to accept vaccination among the possible target groups of pertussis vaccination for cocooning. Consideration of these determinants is necessary to optimise the uptake of the vaccination.
methodsWe conducted 13 focus groups and six individual semi-structured interviews with members of possible target groups for pertussis cocooning (i.e. parents, maternity assistants, midwives, and paediatric nurses) in the Netherlands. Here, both maternal pertussis vaccination as well as pertussis cocooning has not been implemented. The topic list was based on a literature review and a barrier framework. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and two researchers performed thematic content analysis.
findingsThe participants' risk perception, outcome expectations, general vaccination beliefs, moral norms, opinion of others, perceived autonomy, anticipated regret, decisional uncertainty, and perceived organisational barriers were all factors that influenced the intention to accept pertussis vaccination for cocooning. DISCUSSION: This study has identified nine perceived determinants that influence the intention to accept pertussis cocooning vaccination. We add the following determinants to the literature: perceived cost-effectiveness (as a concept of outcome expectations), justice (as a concept of moral norms), anticipated regret, and decisional uncertainty. We recommend considering these determinants in vaccination programmes for pertussis cocooning vaccination. Experience, information and trust emerged as predominant themes within these determinants. These themes require particular attention in future research on vaccination acceptance, especially with regard to their role in use and implementation in policy and practice.
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.