Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29048989›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2018

Vaccination in pregnancy: Attitudes of nurses, midwives and health visitors in England.

Bhavita Vishram, Louise Letley, Albert Jan Van Hoek, Louise Silverton, Helen Donovan, Cheryll Adams, David Green, Angela Edwards, Joanne Yarwood, Helen Bedford and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Bhavita Vishrama Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.
Louise Letleya Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.
Albert Jan Van Hoekb Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK.
Louise Silvertonc Royal College of Midwives (RCM) , London , UK.
Helen Donovand Royal College of Nursing (RCN) , London , UK.
Cheryll Adamse Institute of Health Visiting (iHV) , London , UK.
David Greena Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.
Angela Edwardsa Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.
Joanne Yarwooda Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.
Helen Bedfordf University College London, Institute of Child health , London , UK.
Gayatri Amirthalingama Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.
Helen Campbella Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department , Public Health England , London , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine amongst healthcare professionals in England; knowledge of vaccinations in pregnancy, their perceived roles in these programmes and whether they recommend scheduled vaccines to pregnant women.

designCross sectional survey (online questionnaire) Setting: Healthcare workers in contact with pregnant women in England.

participantsThe survey analysis included 3441 healthcare workers who had been surveyed during May to August 2015. The participants were midwives, practice nurses and health visitors, working in England who were members of the Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Nursing and the Institute of Health Visiting.

resultsWe found that knowledge of vaccination in pregnancy was high in all professional groups. Seventy three percent of all respondents would recommend the influenza vaccine and 74% would recommend the pertussis vaccine to pregnant women. They were more likely to recommend vaccination in pregnancy if they would personally have the influenza and pertussis vaccines themselves and/or if they had the influenza vaccine as a healthcare worker. Practice nurses were significantly more likely to recommend the pertussis and influenza vaccines to pregnant women than midwives and health visitors. Health professionals who had received immunisation training were more confident in giving advice to pregnant women.

conclusionImmunisation training is essential if healthcare workers are to be informed and confident in effectively delivering the maternal immunisation programme and thus improving uptake of vaccines in pregnancy. These findings are important in tailoring educational programmes and addressing the training needs of different healthcare professional groups.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMidwiferyAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleMiddle AgedNurses, Community HealthPatient Acceptance of Health CarePertussis VaccineInfluenza VaccinesPertussis Vaccineattitudeshealth visitorsmidwivesnursespregnantvaccination

Identifiers

PMID29048989
PMCPMC5791587

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.