ArticleBMJ open2018
Public subsidies and the recommendation of child vaccines among primary care physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies and challenges for immunisation of children under 5 years in primary health care in different countries: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of family physicians about childhood vaccinations that are not in the routine vaccination schedule: a cross-sectional study.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- Factors associated between behavior of administrating or recommending mumps vaccine and primary care physicians' knowledge about vaccination: A nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan.Journal of general and family medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough public subsidies and physician recommendations for vaccination play key roles in increasing childhood vaccination coverage, the association between them remains uncertain. This study aimed to identify the association between awareness of public subsidies and recommendations for
designThis is a cross-sectional study.
settingIn 2012, a questionnaire was distributed among 3000 randomly selected physicians who were members of the Japan Primary Care Association.
participantsFrom the questionnaire, participants were limited to physicians who administered childhood vaccinations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary measures were participants' awareness of public subsidies and their recommendation levels for Hib, PCV and HPV vaccines. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between awareness and recommendation, with adjustment for possible confounders.
resultsThe response rate was 25.8% (743/2880). Of 743 physician respondents, 434 were included as analysis subjects. The proportions of those who recommended vaccinations were 57.1% for Hib, 54.1% for PCV and 58.1% for HPV. For each vaccine, multivariable analyses showed physicians who were aware of the subsidy were more likely to recommend vaccination than those who were not aware: the adjusted ORs were 4.21 (95% CI 2.47 to 7.15) for Hib, 4.96 (95% CI 2.89 to 8.53) for PCV and 4.17 (95% CI 2.00 to 8.70) for HPV.
conclusionsPrimary care physicians' awareness of public subsidies was found to be associated with their recommendations for the Hib, PCV and HPV vaccines. Provision of information about public subsidies to these physicians may increase their likelihood to recommend vaccination.
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.