Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30377064›Full record

ReviewVaccine2018

Understanding barriers and predictors of maternal immunization: Identifying gaps through an exploratory literature review.

Chelsea S Lutz, Wendy Carr, Amanda Cohn, Leslie Rodriguez

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chelsea S LutzOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, United States Department of Energy, Washington DC, United States; Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: nfi5@cdc.gov.
Wendy CarrOffice of the Director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: ibt5@cdc.gov.
Amanda CohnOffice of the Director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: anc0@cdc.gov.
Leslie RodriguezOffice of the Director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: iwn3@cdc.gov.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices recommends that all pregnant women receive the seasonal influenza vaccine and the tetanus toxoid, diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during every pregnancy. However, vaccination coverage rates are suboptimal among pregnant women in the United States, leaving these women and their unborn children at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases and their complications.

objectivesWe sought to understand the current landscape of published literature regarding maternal immunization, including barriers to and predictors of vaccine acceptance, and identify gaps in the research in order to inform strategies for future programmatic improvement.

methodsWe conducted a literature search using MEDLINE (OVID), PsychINFO, and CINAHL (Ebsco) databases. The search included published, English-language manuscripts that identified patient, provider, or system-level barriers to, predictors of, or interventions that improved uptake of maternal vaccines among pregnant women in the US. Studies were reviewed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

resultsWe included 75 studies in our review. Pregnant women identified 25 different barriers to accepting recommended maternal immunizations; barriers related to vaccine safety perceptions were the most common. Healthcare providers identified 24 different barriers to vaccinating their pregnant patients. The most commonly cited barriers among healthcare providers were financial concerns. Eighteen different predictors of vaccine acceptance were identified. Receipt of a healthcare provider's recommendation was the factor most frequently reported as a reason for vaccination among pregnant women.

conclusionsWe were able to identify gaps in the literature regarding maternal immunization and make recommendations for future research. Efforts to address the challenges of maternal immunization in the United States should include increasing the focus on Tdap, implementing more high-level assessments of safety perceptions and associated concerns, and determining most effective interventions.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleDiphtheriaDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesFemaleHumansInfluenza VaccinesPregnancyTetanusUnited StatesVaccination CoverageWhooping CoughDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesInfluenza VaccinesInfluenza vaccineMaternal immunizationPrenatal careTdap vaccineVaccination during pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID30377064
PMCPMC10431095
OpenAlexW2898391526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.