ArticleZeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health2008
The public perception of the value of vaccines - the case of Switzerland.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health, 2008. 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.
- Background incidence rates of selected adverse events of special interest (AESI) to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.Vaccine · 2023Article
- Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccination Among Young Adults in Zurich, Switzerland, September 2020.International journal of public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIn this original article, we seek to analyse the environment in which immunisation policies are adopted and, more specifically, the way the public perception of vaccines influences decision-making, by looking more closely at the case of Switzerland. SUBJECTS AND
methodsHistorical and present-day examples of attitudes towards immunisation and specific vaccines, both on the part of the public and of health-care workers, are reviewed.
resultsDecision-making with regard to vaccine policy implementation has been and is still most often driven by fear: fear of disease (when perceived as rampant and/or dangerous), but also fear of vaccine-associated adverse events (when the disease is less or no longer "visible"). However, methodology for introducing evidence-based immunisation policies exists and can be used by public health authorities, while vaccination information systems (such as the Swiss InfoVac) have proven their usefulness in providing trustworthy, peer-based knowledge to health-care workers.
conclusionOnly information based on clear, evidence-based data gathered and analysed according to solid methodological criteria coupled with adequate information of health-care workers (and thus patients) can ensure in future the implementation of scientifically coherent, publicly acceptable, and equitable immunisation policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.