Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32645112›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Factors that influence vaccination decision-making among pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eliz Kilich, Sara Dada, Mark R Francis, John Tazare, R Matthew Chico, Pauline Paterson, Heidi J Larson

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06815250 (Effectiveness of the Influenza and Tdap), which is not on this map. Cited by 117 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
19.9field-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.

NCT06815250 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of the Influenza and Tdap (Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis) Vaccination Educational and Learning Module (InTroDuce-Programme) in Improving Knowledge and Future Uptake of Vaccination Among Pregnant Mothers in Primary Care Clinics: A Randomised Control Trial Secondary IDs

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversiti Putra MalaysiaRan2026 to 2026Enrolled351ConditionsVaccination Uptake, Knowledge, Tetanus, Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis Vaccination, InfluenzaArmsInfluenza and Tdap Vaccination Educational and Learning Module
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 224 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Perceived barriers to accessing vaccination plans in pregnant women in Chile: a qualitative analysis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Eliz KilichDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0928-8293
Sara DadaDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3910-1856
Mark R FrancisDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8428-4298
John TazareDepartment of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
R Matthew ChicoDepartment of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Pauline PatersonDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Heidi J LarsonDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe most important factor influencing maternal vaccination uptake is healthcare professional (HCP) recommendation. However, where data are available, one-third of pregnant women remain unvaccinated despite receiving a recommendation. Therefore, it is essential to understand the significance of other factors and distinguish between vaccines administered routinely and during outbreaks. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD 42019118299) to examine the strength of the relationships between identified factors and maternal vaccination uptake.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase Classic & Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, IBSS, LILACS, AfricaWideInfo, IMEMR, and Global Health databases for studies reporting factors that influence maternal vaccination. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of being vaccinated by vaccine type.

findingsWe screened 17,236 articles and identified 120 studies from 30 countries for inclusion. Of these, 49 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The odds of receiving a pertussis or influenza vaccination were ten to twelve-times higher among pregnant women who received a recommendation from HCPs. During the 2009 influenza pandemic an HCP recommendation increased the odds of antenatal H1N1 vaccine uptake six times (OR 6.76, 95% CI 3.12-14.64, I2 = 92.00%). Believing there was potential for vaccine-induced harm had a negative influence on seasonal (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.44 I2 = 84.00%) and pandemic influenza vaccine uptake (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, I2 = 89.48%), reducing the odds of being vaccinated five-fold. Combined with our qualitative analysis the relationship between the belief in substantial disease risk and maternal seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination uptake was limited.

conclusionsThe effect of an HCP recommendation during an outbreak, whilst still powerful, may be muted by other factors. This requires further research, particularly when vaccines are novel. Public health campaigns which centre on the protectiveness and safety of a maternal vaccine rather than disease threat alone may prove beneficial.

Indexed as

AdultDecision MakingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesOdds RatioPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnant PeopleSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID32645112
PMCPMC7347125
OpenAlexW3041022636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.