Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31562000›Full record

SynthesisVaccine2019

Beliefs around childhood vaccines in the United States: A systematic review.

Courtney Gidengil, Christine Chen, Andrew M Parker, Sarah Nowak, Luke Matthews

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Vaccine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Exploring social media influences on vaccine decision-making in parents: a netnography.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Courtney GidengilRAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 920, Boston, MA 02116, USA; Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: gidengil@rand.org.
Christine ChenFrederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA; RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA. Electronic address: cchen@rand.org.
Andrew M ParkerRAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Ave #600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Electronic address: parker@rand.org.
Sarah NowakRAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA. Electronic address: snowak@rand.org.
Luke MatthewsRAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 920, Boston, MA 02116, USA. Electronic address: lmatthew@rand.org.
RAND Corporation · USBoston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Vaccine Beliefs and Decision MakingR21HD087749 · NICHD · RAND CORPORATION · PI MATTHEWS, LUKE · 2017 to 2018
$482k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD087749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile childhood vaccines are safe and effective, some parents remain hesitant to vaccinate their children, which has led to outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. The goal of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the range of beliefs around childhood vaccines elicited using open-ended questions, which are better suited for discovering beliefs compared to closed-ended questions.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched using keywords for childhood vaccines, decision makers, beliefs, and attitudes to identify studies that collected primary data using a variety of open-ended questions regarding routine childhood vaccine beliefs in the United States. Study designs, population characteristics, vaccine types, and vaccine beliefs were abstracted. We conducted a qualitative analysis to conceptualize beliefs into themes and generated descriptive statistics.

resultsOf 1727 studies identified, 71 were included, focusing largely on parents (including in general, and those who were vaccine hesitant or at risk of hesitancy). Seven themes emerged: Adverse effects was most prominent, followed by mistrust, perceived lack of necessity, pro-vaccine opinions, skepticism about effectiveness, desire for autonomy, and morality concerns. The most commonly described beliefs included that vaccines can cause illnesses; a child's immune system can be overwhelmed if receiving too many vaccines at once; vaccines contain harmful ingredients; younger children are more susceptible to vaccine adverse events; the purpose of vaccines is profit-making; and naturally developed immunity is better than that acquired from vaccines. Nearly a third of the studies exclusively assessed minority populations, and more than half of the studies examined beliefs only regarding HPV vaccine.

conclusionsFew studies used open-ended questions to elicit beliefs about vaccines. Many of the studies that did so, focused on HPV vaccine. Concerns about vaccine safety were the most commonly stated beliefs about childhood vaccines, likely because studies were designed to capture barriers and challenges to vaccination.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFemaleHumansImmunizationMalePatient Acceptance of Health CareUnited StatesVaccinationChildhood vaccinesSystematic reviewVaccine beliefsVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID31562000
PMCPMC6949013
OpenAlexW2974938419

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.