Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29494274›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2018

Understanding the barriers to uptake of antenatal vaccination by women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: A cross-sectional study.

Sushena Krishnaswamy, Allen C Cheng, Euan M Wallace, Jim Buttery, Michelle L Giles

Abstract read
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 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Definitions ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Sushena Krishnaswamya The Ritchie Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , Monash University , Clayton , Victoria , Australia.
Allen C Chengc Department of Infectious Diseases , Alfred Health , Prahran , Victoria , Australia.
Euan M Wallacea The Ritchie Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , Monash University , Clayton , Victoria , Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4506-5233
Jim Butteryf Infection and Immunity, Monash Children's Hospital , Clayton , Victoria , Australia.
Michelle L Gilesa The Ritchie Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , Monash University , Clayton , Victoria , Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of maternal vaccination in reducing neonatal morbidity and mortality is expanding but uptake remains suboptimal. While the barriers to uptake have been well described, women from minority groups have not been well represented in previous studies. In this study we examine the facilitators and barriers to uptake of antenatal vaccination by women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in Melbourne, Australia. 537 women attending antenatal care completed a survey; 69% were born overseas. 63% had or intended to receive pertussis vaccine and 57% had or intended to receive influenza vaccine during their pregnancy. On multivariable analysis, predictors of uptake of pertussis vaccine were healthcare provider recommendation (OR 10, 95% CI 5-21, p < 0.001) and belief maternal pertussis vaccination is safe (OR 36, 95% CI 18-70, p < 0.001). For influenza vaccine, predictors of uptake were previous receipt of influenza vaccine (OR 8, 95% CI 5-15, p < 0.001) and healthcare provider recommendation (OR 30, 95% CI 16-56, p < 0.001). Lack of healthcare provider recommendation was the main reason for non-vaccination (17/46, 37%). While most women were aware of and intended to receive recommended vaccinations, recently arrived migrant women (resident in Australia for less than two years) were less likely to be aware of pertussis vaccine (15/22, 68% vs 452/513, 88%, p = 0.01) and less likely to believe it to be safe during pregnancy (4/22, 18% vs 299/514, 58%, p < 0.001). This highlights the important role of healthcare providers in recommending and educating women, particularly newly arrived migrant women, in their decisions about vaccination during pregnancy.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMinority HealthPatient Acceptance of Health CarePertussis VaccinePregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareSurveys and QuestionnairesInfluenza VaccinesPertussis Vaccineantenatal vaccinationattitudesethnically diverseinfluenzaknowledgematernal vaccinationpertussisvaccination attitudesvaccine acceptancevaccines in pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID29494274
PMCPMC6067853

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.