Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28018959›Full record

ReviewSSM - population health2016

A qualitative systematic review of factors influencing parents' vaccination decision-making in the United Kingdom.

Alice S Forster, Lauren Rockliffe, Amanda J Chorley, Laura A V Marlow, Helen Bedford, Samuel G Smith, Jo Waller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in SSM - population health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A 5-year look-back at the notification and management of vaccine supply shortages in Germany.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Alice S ForsterHealth Behaviour Research Centre, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Lauren RockliffeHealth Behaviour Research Centre, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Amanda J ChorleyHealth Behaviour Research Centre, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Laura A V MarlowHealth Behaviour Research Centre, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Helen BedfordInstitute of Child Health, UCL, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, United Kingdom.
Samuel G SmithWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom.
Jo WallerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17219Cancer Research UK 17429Cancer Research UK 17965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh uptake of vaccinations is crucial for disease prevention. Although overall uptake of childhood immunisations is high in the United Kingdom (UK), pockets of lower uptake remain. Novel systematic methods have not been employed when reviewing the qualitative literature examining parents' vaccination decisions.

aimsWe aimed to conduct a qualitative systematic review of studies in the UK to understand factors influencing parental decisions to vaccinate a child.

methodsOn 12/2/14 we searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL plus, Embase, Social Policy and Practice and Web of Science for studies using qualitative methods and reporting reasons why parents in the UK had or had not immunised their child. Participant quotes and authors' interpretations of qualitative data were extracted from the results of articles. Thematic synthesis was used to develop higher-order themes (conducted in 2015).

results34 papers were included. Two types of decision-making had been adopted: non-deliberative and deliberative. With non-deliberative decisions parents felt they had no choice, were happy to comply and/or relied on social norms. Deliberative decisions involved weighing up the risks and benefits, considering others' advice/experiences and social judgement. Emotions affected deliberative decision-making. Trust in information and vaccine stakeholders was integral to all decision-making. Practical issues affected those who intended to vaccinate.

conclusionsParents adopted two different approaches to decision-making about childhood vaccinations. By understanding more about the mechanisms underpinning parents' vaccination behaviour, in collaboration with vaccine stakeholders, we can better design interventions to enhance informed uptake.

Indexed as

ParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareThematic synthesisVaccination

Identifiers

PMID28018959
PMCPMC5165048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.