SynthesisBMC health services research2016
The swine flu vaccine, public attitudes, and researcher interpretations: a systematic review of qualitative research.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled 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
- Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of communicating with people over 50 years of age about vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Predictors of Risk Perception Among General Practitioners and Paediatricians Concerning Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields.Bioelectromagnetics · 2026Article
- A risk science perspective on vaccines.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024Article
- Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Ocular manifestations of recent viral pandemics: A literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Among sheeples and antivaxxers: Social media responses to COVID-19 vaccine news posted by Canadian news organizations, and recommendations to counter vaccine hesitancy.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2021Article
- COVID-19: the perfect vector for a mental health epidemic.BJPsych bulletin · 2021Review
- An Updated Review of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and the Importance of Effective Vaccination Programs in Pandemic Times.Vaccines · 2021Review
- Temporal changes in psychobehavioural responses during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Corrigendum: Conspiracy Theories: A Public Health Concern and How to Address It.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Conspiracy Theories: A Public Health Concern and How to Address It.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Recommendations on How to Manage Anticipated Communication Dilemmas Involving Medical Countermeasures in an Emergency.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring pandemics, health authorities may be uncertain about the spread and severity of the disease and the effectiveness and safety of available interventions. This was the case during the swine flu (H1N1) pandemic of 2009-2010, and governments were forced to make decisions despite these uncertainties. While many countries chose to implement wide scale vaccination programmes, few accomplished their vaccination goals. Many research studies aiming to explore barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake have been conducted in the aftermath of the pandemic, including several qualitative studies.
aims1. To explore public attitudes to the swine flu vaccine in different countries through a review of qualitative primary studies. 2. To describe and discuss the implications drawn by the primary study authors.
methodsSystematic review of qualitative research studies, using a broadly comparative cross case-study approach. Study quality was appraised using an adaptation of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality assessment tool.
resultsThe review indicates that the public had varying opinions about disease risk and prevalence and had concerns about vaccine safety. Most primary study authors concluded that participants were uninformed, and that more information about the disease and the vaccine would have led to an increase in vaccine uptake. We find these conclusions problematic. We suggest instead that people's questions and concerns were legitimate given the uncertainties of the situation at the time and the fact that the authorities did not have the necessary information to convince the public. Our quality assessment of the included studies points to a lack of reflexivity and a lack of information about study context. We suggest that these study weaknesses are tied to primary study authors' lack of acknowledgement of the uncertainties surrounding the disease and the vaccine.
conclusionWhile primary study authors suggest that authorities could increase vaccine uptake through increased information, we suggest instead that health authorities should be more transparent in their information and decision-making processes in future pandemic situations.
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.