ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2019
[Health professionals' attitudes against influenza vaccination in a spanish terciary hospital].
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing healthcare professionals' confidence in vaccination in Europe: a literature review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Review
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHealthcare professionals is one of the risk groups to which influenza vaccination is recommended. The main objective was to know the attitudes of healthcare professionals about influenza vaccination in the Principality of Asturias' reference centre during the campaign 2017-2018.
methodsWe carried out a cross-sectional study between September 2017 and May 2018, using a questionnaire. Sociodemographic variables and reasons for accepting or refuse the influenza vaccination were studied. For descriptive analysis we used the mean, mode, standard deviation, range, frequencies and percentages. The comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated was made by the Chi square test, Saphiro-Wilk test and U Mann-Whitney test.
resultsThe sample was formed by 518 participants, finally resulted a 29.53% vaccination rate. The principal reason for accepting the vaccine was its efficacy (average on the Likert scale of 4.11 out of 5), while the main reason for not vaccination was the lack of interest (mean=3.41 out of 5). It confirmed relationship between the type of contract and the professional category, the lower vaccination was in the temporary staff (p=0.003) and the nursing profession (p<0.001). We also found association between professionals that used to receive the vaccine in all the campaigns (p<0.001) and those who received the immunization in their workplace (p=0.002). Finally, the profession (p=0.014) and the family (p<0.001) also were influential in the decision of the immunized.
conclusionsThe vaccination rate of the professionals who work in the Asturias´ reference hospital is similar to that of other health centres in Spain, but it is below the objective set by the World Health Organization. The previous contact with the influenza immunization, a positive working environment respecting the vaccine and the promotion of information, could be favourable factors in the vaccinal decision of the health workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31391453PMC11583055W2991398723What 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.