ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2019
[Design and validation of a questionnaire on the attitudes of health professionals towards the official recommendation of influenza vaccination].
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of measures of healthcare workers' vaccine confidence.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Design of a Training Model for Remote Management of Patients Hospitalized at Home.Journal of medical and biological engineering · 2020Article
- eHealth Literacy and Professional Attitudes as Predictors of Influenza Vaccination and Recommendation Among Spanish Primary-Care Nurses.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveActually, there are no studies related to the attitudes of health professionals towards the official recommendation of influenza vaccination, despite the fact that there are numerous investigations that have addressed their own attitude towards vaccination. The objective is to design the Questionnaire on the Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals towards the Official Flu Vaccination Recommendations (CAPSVA).
methodsQuasi-experimental study. The control group includedInstrumental study was conducted between February and March 2019 with 288 professionals of Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy of the Principado of Asturias (Spain). The sampling was non-probabilistic of incidental type. After content validation, a tool was designed with 16 items in three dimensions. Reliability (alpha ordinal) and internal validity (exploratory factorial analysis using the parallel analysis method) analyses were performed, as well as frequency analysis and mean comparisons.
resultsThe exploratory factor analysis yielded a 3-factor solution that explained 79.38% of the total variance. The ordinal alpha ranged from 0,72 to 0,80. The test-retest recorded a value of r= 0,804 (p < 0,001). There were no statistically significant differences when comparing according to sex (p = 0,952), professional group (p = 0,563) or having received influenza vaccination in the last campaign (p = 0,861). There were these differences when comparing the number of years of professional practice (p = 0,003) and having received specific training in vaccines in the last year (p = 0,004). More than 90% of the participants valued positively the influenza vaccination strategy of the Autonomous Community of study (quadrivalent vaccine for < 65 years and adjuvant trivalent for ≥65 years).
conclusionsA questionnaire with sufficient guarantees of reliability and internal validity is available to evaluate the attitudes of health professionals towards the official recommendation of influenza vaccination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31032822PMC11583087What 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.