Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32807124›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2020

A systematic review of studies that measure parental vaccine attitudes and beliefs in childhood vaccination.

Amalie Dyda, Catherine King, Aditi Dey, Julie Leask, Adam G Dunn

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amalie DydaCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. amalie.dyda@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2806-4834
Catherine KingNational Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Aditi DeyNational Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Julie LeaskNational Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Adam G DunnCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUChildren's Hospital at Westmead · AUMacquarie University · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1128968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcceptance of vaccines is an important predictor of vaccine uptake. This has public health implications as those who are not vaccinated are at a higher risk of infection from vaccine preventable diseases. We aimed to examine how parental attitudes and beliefs towards childhood vaccination were measured in questionnaires through a systematic review of the literature.

methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature to identify primary research studies using tools to measure vaccine attitudes and beliefs, published between January 2012 and May 2018. Studies were included if they involved a quantitative survey of the attitudes and beliefs of parents about vaccinations recommended for children. We undertook a synthesis of the results with a focus on evaluating the tools used to measure hesitancy.

resultsA total of 116 studies met the inclusion criteria, 99 used a cross sectional study design, 5 used a case control study design, 4 used a pre-post study design and 8 used mixed methods study designs. Sample sizes of included studies ranged from 49 to 12,259. The most commonly used tool was the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Survey (n = 7). The most common theoretical framework used was the Health Belief Model (n = 25). Questions eliciting vaccination attitudes and beliefs varied widely.

conclusionsThere was heterogeneity in the types of questionnaires used in studies investigating attitudes and beliefs about vaccination in parents. Methods to measure parental attitudes and beliefs about vaccination could be improved with validated and standardised yet flexible instruments. The use of a standard set of questions should be encouraged in this area of study.

Indexed as

Child HealthHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CareCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesCultureFemaleHumansMaleParentsSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationHesitancyImmunization/immunisationRefusalVaccinationVaccines, questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID32807124
PMCPMC7433363
OpenAlexW3049186238

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.