ArticleBMJ open2018
Adolescent self-consent for vaccinations: protocol for a mixed methods systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe recent global expansion of routine adolescent vaccination programmes has the potential to protect young people against the acquisition of infectious disease and improve their health. Although in many countries the legal framework supports young people to provide consent for medical interventions if they are considered competent, written parental consent can act as a barrier to uptake as it is frequently a condition of adolescent vaccination programmes. The aim of this systematic review protocol is to document the methods which will be used to identify, appraise and synthesise the available qualitative and quantitative evidence to address: (1) whether implementation of adolescent self-consent procedures can increase vaccination uptake and (2) the barriers and facilitators to implementation of adolescent self-consent procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Comprehensive search strategy of all relevant electronic databases for both qualitative and quantitative studies using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. At least two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, extract data and assess the methodological quality of eligible primary studies, resolving disagreements by consensus. Quantitative studies will be reported narratively and where possible pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The findings of qualitative primary studies will be extracted, interpreted and synthesised to identify overarching themes as well as similarities and differences within those themes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this systematic review involves analysis of secondary data, the study does not require ethical approvals. We will use our findings to assess whether the evidence supports the hypothesis that self-consent procedures can increase coverage of adolescent vaccination programmes. We will identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of adolescent self-consent for vaccination and make recommendations for policy makers and practitioners in relation to consent procedures within vaccination programmes for young people. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017084509.
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.