Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27322109›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

Can mobile technologies improve on-time vaccination? A study piloting maternal use of ImmunizeCA, a Pan-Canadian immunization app.

Katherine M Atkinson, Jacqueline Westeinde, Robin Ducharme, Sarah E Wilson, Shelley L Deeks, Natasha Crowcroft, Steven Hawken, Kumanan Wilson

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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. [Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Registries: An essential tool for maximising the health benefits of immunisation in the 21st century.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

8 authors.

Katherine M Atkinsona Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa , Canada.
Jacqueline Westeindea Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa , Canada.
Robin Ducharmea Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa , Canada.
Sarah E Wilsonc Public Health Ontario , Toronto , Canada.
Shelley L Deeksc Public Health Ontario , Toronto , Canada.
Natasha Crowcroftc Public Health Ontario , Toronto , Canada.
Steven Hawkena Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa , Canada.
Kumanan Wilsona Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa , Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile applications have the potential to influence vaccination behavior, including on-time vaccination. We sought to determine whether the use of a mobile immunization app was associated with the likelihood of reporting on-time vaccination in a cohort of 50 childbearing women. In this pilot study, we describe participant reported app use, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs regarding pediatric vaccination and technology readiness index (TRI) scores. To explore if app use is associated with change in attitudes, beliefs or behavior, participants were instructed complete a baseline survey at recruitment then download the app. A follow up survey followed 6-months later, reexamining concepts from the first survey as well as collecting participant TRI scores. Changes in Likert scores between pre and post survey questions were compared and multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between TRI score and select survey responses. Thirty-two percent of participants perceived that the app made them more likely to vaccinate on time. We found some individuals' attitudes toward vaccines improved, some became less supportive and in others there was no change. The mean participant TRI score was 3.25(IQR 0.78) out of a maximum score of 5, indicating a moderate level of technological adoption among the study cohort population. While the app was well received, these preliminary results showed participant attitudes toward vaccination moved dichotomously. Barriers to adoption remain in both usability and accessibility of mobile solutions, which are in part dependent on the user's innate characteristics such as technology readiness.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeImmunization ScheduleMobile ApplicationsReminder SystemsAdultCanadaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansPilot ProjectsPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsYoung Adultattitudes and behaviorsimmunizationknowledgemobile technologypediatric vaccinationvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID27322109
PMCPMC5085001

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.