ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
An example of clinical inertia in geriatrics.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical inertia in elderly for vaccination.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs we know that close contact is the main reason of the contagious diseases, caregivers are at higher risk for diseases that we can prevent by vaccines. In present study, we aim at revealing an example of clinical inertia in geriatrics, which shows us the status of vaccination both in a group of older patients and their caregivers. MATERIALS AND
methodsBoth the caregivers and their dependent geriatric patients were included, and the selection of the participants was designed on a random and volunteer basis. We performed the study with a phenomenological design and asked the participants their vaccination status. For the participants that were not vaccinated, the reasons were questioned with a demographic form. Correlations between parameters were analyzed with an independent
resultsA total of 144 caregivers with 21 men (14.6%) and 123 female (85.4%) were included in the study. A total of 111(77.1%) caregivers had never been vaccinated before, while 21 (14.6%) caregivers were vaccinated occasionally, and finally, 12 (8.3%) caregivers were vaccinated on a regular base. The vaccination status of the older adults was as follows: 42 patients (29.2%) had never been vaccinated before, 60 (41.7%) had been vaccinated occasionally, and 42 (29.2%) patients had been vaccinated regularly.
conclusionThe vaccination rates of caregivers and older patients were lower than we expected, so primary-care providers need to plan more vaccination awareness studies in social media and communities. Clinical inertia might be an essential reason in the lower vaccination rates of the caregivers and older adults' population.
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.