Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180859›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Decision-making on maternal pertussis vaccination among women in a vaccine-hesitant religious group: Stages and needs.

Anne C de Munter, Wilhelmina L M Ruijs, Robert A C Ruiter, Dagmar J J van Nimwegen, Anke J M Oerlemans, Rijk van Ginkel, Marlies E J L Hulscher, Jeannine L A Hautvast

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Importance of Targeted Communication Strategies During COVID-19 Vaccination Campaigns in Mozambique: Results of a Mixed-Methods Acceptability Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Anne C de MunterDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6152-7373
Wilhelmina L M RuijsDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Robert A C RuiterDepartment of Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5017-3258
Dagmar J J van NimwegenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anke J M OerlemansIQ healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rijk van Ginkel"Fruits of Passion; Together Fighting Human Suffering", Bodegraven, The Netherlands.
Marlies E J L HulscherIQ healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jeannine L A HautvastDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLMaastricht University · NLTogether · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs of December 2019, pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered pertussis vaccination to protect their newborn infant against pertussis infection. However, the manner in which pregnant women decide about this maternal pertussis vaccination is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the decision-making process regarding maternal pertussis vaccination, and to explore the related needs among the vaccine-hesitant subgroup of orthodox Protestant women.

methodsCharmaz's grounded theory approach was used to develop a decision-making framework. To construct this framework we used an explorative multimethod approach in which in-depth interviews and online focus groups were supplemented by a literature search and research group meetings. This study was carried out in a hypothetical situation since the maternal pertussis vaccination had yet to be implemented in the Dutch immunisation programme at the time of the study.

resultsTwenty-five orthodox Protestant women participated in an interview, an online focus group, or in both. The findings of this study resulted in a decision-making framework that included three stages of decision-making; an Orientation stage, a value-based Deliberation stage, and Final decision stage. The Orientation stage included the needs for decision-making categorised into Information needs and Conversation needs. Women indicated that -if they were to receive sufficient time for Orientation and Deliberation- they would be able to reach the stage of Final decision.

conclusionThe decision-making framework resulting from our findings can be used by health care professionals to provide women with information and consultation in the decision-making process. Future studies should investigate whether the stages of and needs for decision-making can be found across other vaccine-hesitant subgroups and vaccinations.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicPertussis VaccinePregnancyPregnant PeopleReligionVaccinationWhooping CoughYoung AdultPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID33180859
PMCPMC7660565
OpenAlexW3102325597

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.