Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29653846›Full record

Observational studyVaccine2018

"When you are injected, the baby is protected:" Assessing the acceptability of a maternal Tdap vaccine based on mothers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of pertussis and vaccinations in Lusaka, Zambia.

Anna Larson Williams, Lois McCloskey, Magdalene Mwale, Lawrence Mwananyanda, Kenya Murray, Augusta R Herman, Donald M Thea, William B MacLeod, Christopher J Gill

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Vaccine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna Larson WilliamsBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Global Health, United States. Electronic address: alarsonw@bu.edu.
Lois McCloskeyBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences, United States.
Magdalene MwaleRight to Care, Zambia.
Lawrence MwananyandaBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Global Health, United States; Right to Care, Zambia.
Kenya MurrayZambian Center for Applied Health Research and Development, Zambia.
Augusta R HermanBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Global Health, United States.
Donald M TheaBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Global Health, United States.
William B MacLeodBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Global Health, United States.
Christopher J GillBoston University School of Public Health, Department of Global Health, United States.
Boston University · USRight to Care · ZMZambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research · ZM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSevere and fatal pertussis infections are concentrated among infants who are too young to be protected through routine vaccinations. Maternal Tdap (mTdap), which is now the standard of care in the US and UK, is considered to be the most effective way to address this gap in preventative care. Little is known about how pregnant women in low-resource settings might view mTdap. To inform strategies for mTdap implementation in these contexts, public health researchers sought to understand knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward pertussis and maternal vaccines and assess the barriers to vaccine acceptance.

methodsWe conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) among mothers who participated in a longitudinal birth cohort study at the Chawama primary health center in Lusaka, Zambia. Since SAMIPS was not a clinical trial, but instead an observational cohort study, registration on clinicaltrials.gov was not required. Trained interviewers conducted the FGDs in January 2016 using a semi-structured interview guide, exploring participants' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward pertussis and vaccines. We analyzed the transcripts using Nvivo v.11 software.

resultsFifty mothers participated across 7 FGDs. Mothers had limited knowledge of pertussis and vaccines, yet expressed generally positive views of vaccinating themselves and their children. Participants conveyed very little vaccine hesitancy around maternal vaccinations, and discussed how they could protect their children's health. Mothers also highlighted barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake, which included partner involvement, feelings of maternal authority over healthcare decision-making, and community rumors about Western medicine.

conclusionMothers viewed vaccinations as an important method to keep their children healthy, despite cultural myths and misconceptions about pertussis and vaccines. FGD results suggest that vaccine acceptability is high in Zambia, which is a critical factor to vaccine uptake. A strategy addressing myths and misconceptions should be prioritized if and when mTdap is introduced across low-resource settings.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMalePregnancyVaccinationWhooping CoughYoung AdultDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesMaternal and child healthMaternal TdapPertussisVaccine acceptabilityVaccine attitudesVaccine hesitancyZambia

Identifiers

PMID29653846
PMCPMC5952816
OpenAlexW2796587065

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.