Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27564975›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

To close the childhood immunization gap, we need a richer understanding of parents' decision-making.

Paul Corben, Julie Leask

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

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

2 authors.

Paul Corbena North Coast Public Health , Mid North Coast Local Health District , Port Macquarie , New South Wales , Australia.
Julie Leaskb School of Public Health , University of Sydney, University of Sydney , NSW , Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful public health interventions globally and in most high-income countries childhood vaccination coverage rates are moderately high. Yet in many instances, immunisation rates remain below aspirational targets and have shown only modest progress toward those targets in recent years, despite concerted efforts to improve uptake. In part, coverage rates reflect individual parents' vaccination attitudes and decisions and, because vaccination decision-making is complex and context-specific, it remains challenging at individual and community levels to assist parents to make positive decisions. Consequently, in the search for opportunities to improve immunisation coverage, there has been a renewed research focus on parents' decision-making. This review provides an overview of the literature surrounding parents' vaccination decision-making, offering suggestions for where efforts to increase vaccination coverage should be targeted and identifying areas for further research.

Indexed as

Decision MakingParentsVaccinationattitudesbeliefsdecision-makinghesitant parentsimmunisationparentspreventative behaviorvaccination

Identifiers

PMID27564975
PMCPMC5215493

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.