ArticlePloS one2017
Uptake of a new meningitis vaccination programme amongst first-year undergraduate students in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics associated with inequalities in invasive meningococcal disease prevention in high-income countries and Latin America.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Meningococcal Outbreaks in Tertiary Education Settings in the United Kingdom: Lessons from the 2026 Kent Cluster for Surveillance, Vaccination Policy, and Institutional Preparedness in Sub-Saharan Africa-A Narrative Review.Infectious disease reports · 2026Review
- "Why should I pay for this vaccine?" - Norwegian adolescents views on meningococcal vaccination.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Factors influencing vaccine acceptance in pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter study from West Bengal, India.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Lack of influence of social media on vaccine decision-making by university students in Ireland.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- 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
- Dynamics in public perceptions and media coverage during an ongoing outbreak of meningococcal W disease in the Netherlands.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Targeted vaccination campaigns of teenagers after two clusters of B invasive meningococcal disease in Brittany, France, 2017.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Meningococcal W135 Disease Vaccination Intent, the Netherlands, 2018-2019.Emerging infectious diseases · 2020Article
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
backgroundIn 2015 meningococcal group W was declared endemic in the UK, with the meningococcal ACWY vaccination (MenACWY) subsequently introduced amongst adolescents and first-year university students. This study aimed to determine MenACWY uptake amongst students and to evaluate how this was influenced by demographics and via the Health Belief Model (HBM).
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study conducted at a British university amongst first-year undergraduate students aged 18-25 years. Data collection was via an electronic questionnaire encompassing demographics, the HBM and vaccination status. Univariable analysis of the associations between demographics, health beliefs and vaccination was performed, followed by multiple logistic regression.
results401 participants were included in analysis. Vaccine uptake was 68.1%. Variables independently associated with vaccination upon multiple regression were age, gap-year, perceived effectiveness of the vaccine and knowledge about risk of meningitis. Compared to 18 year-olds, the odds of vaccination were reduced for 19 year-olds (aOR = 0.087, 95% CI = 0.010-0.729), 20 year-olds (aOR = 0.019, 95% CI = 0.002-0.161) and 21-25 year-olds (aOR = 0.003, 95% CI = <0.001-0.027). In contrast, taking a gap year (aOR = 2.939, 95% CI = 1.329-6.501), higher perceived vaccine effectiveness (aOR = 3.555, 95% CI = 1.787-7.073) and knowledge about meningitis risk (aOR = 2.481, 95% CI = 1.165-5.287) were independently associated with increased uptake.
conclusionsMenACWY uptake amongst students in this study and in other sources is above the national coverage for all adolescents (35.3%), indicating that this vaccination programme may be increasing health inequalities. Older students are less likely to become vaccinated due to differing vaccination policy in this age-group. In future, strategies that focus on specific student cohorts and that highlight vaccine effectiveness and the risk of meningitis should be considered. National evaluation of this vaccination programme is recommended to clarify its impact on health inequalities.
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.