Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31507265›Full record

Trial reportEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2019

Promoting vaccination in maternity wards ─ motivational interview technique reduces hesitancy and enhances intention to vaccinate, results from a multicentre non-controlled pre- and post-intervention RCT-nested study, Quebec, March 2014 to February 2015.

Arnaud Gagneur, Marie-Claude Battista, François D Boucher, Bruce Tapiero, Caroline Quach, Philippe De Wals, Thomas Lemaitre, Anne Farrands, Nicole Boulianne, Chantal Sauvageau and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Arnaud GagneurCentre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Claude BattistaCentre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
François D BoucherCentre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Bruce TapieroCHU Sainte Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Caroline QuachCHU Sainte Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Philippe De WalsDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Laval University, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Thomas LemaitreCentre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Anne FarrandsCentre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Nicole BoulianneCentre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Chantal SauvageauDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Manale OuakkiInstitut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Virginie GosselinCentre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Geneviève PetitDirection de santé publique du CIUSSS de l'Estrie - CHUS, Département des sciences de la santé communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Claude JacquesInstitut universitaire de première ligne en santé et services sociaux du CIUSSS de l'Estrie - CHUS, Québec, Canada.
Ève DubéInstitut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke · CAInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec · CAUniversité de Sherbrooke · CACentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CACentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · CACentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean · CAUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundMany countries are grappling with growing numbers of parents who delay or refuse recommended vaccinations for their children. This has created a need for strategies to address vaccine hesitancy (VH) and better support parental decision-making regarding vaccination.AimTo assess vaccination intention (VI) and VH among parents who received an individual motivational-interview (MI) based intervention on infant immunisation during post-partum stay at a maternity ward between March 2014 and February 2015.MethodsThis non-controlled pre-/post-intervention study was conducted using the results from parents enrolled in the intervention arm of the PromoVaQ randomised control trial (RCT), which was conducted in four maternity wards across the Province of Quebec. Participants (n = 1,223) completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires on VI and VH using Opel's score. Pre-/post-intervention measures were compared using McNemar's test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables.ResultsPre-intervention: overall VI was 78% and significantly differed across maternity wards (74%, 77%, 84%, 79%, p = 0.02). Post-intervention: VI rose significantly across maternity wards (89%, 85%, 95%, 93%) and the overall increase in VI was 12% (78% vs 90%, p < 0.0001). VH corroborated these observations, pre- vs post-intervention, for each maternity ward (28% vs 16%, 29% vs 21%, 27% vs 17%, 24% vs 13%). Overall, VH was curbed post-intervention by 40% (27% vs 16%; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsCompared with pre-intervention status, participants who received the MI-based intervention on immunisation displayed lower hesitancy and greater intention to vaccinate their infant at 2 months of age.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingAdultDecision MakingFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansImmunization ProgramsInfantInfant, NewbornIntentionMaleMothersOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePostpartum PeriodVaccinesCanadahesitancyimmunisationinfantintentionmotivational interviewingparentsvaccinevaccines

Identifiers

PMID31507265
PMCPMC6737828
OpenAlexW2971863642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.