ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021
Health care professionals' preference for a fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent vaccine in Spain.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination is an effective health intervention for the prevention of infectious diseases. This study aims to evaluate the response provided by nurses toward the use of ready-to-use (RTU) formulations of hexavalent vaccines and measures to prevent errors during the vaccination process. This observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study took place from March to May 2018. It included 201 interviews with nurses from health centers in Madrid (70), Murcia (59), and Andalusia (72), who had administered RTU vaccines in the last 12 months. Approximately 91.6% of nurses provided a positive feedback for the use of RTU vaccines. The most significant concerns experienced by nurses were during the preparation and administration of vaccines; 84.1% versus 18.9% of nurses felt that the risk of making mistakes was lower while using RTU vaccines compared with non-reconstituted (lyophilized) vaccines, and 74.1% versus 22.4% of nurses felt ease at preparing RTU vaccines compared with lyophilized vaccines. A total of 66.7% of nurses believed that there were risks associated with the preparation of lyophilized vaccines (administration risk [42.8%] and risk of needle injury [42.3%]). Risk percentages reduced to 4% and 9.5%, respectively, with the use of the RTU vaccines. Therefore, nurses adopted an average of seven steps to reduce the risk of errors. The average time saved during the administration of the vaccines was 1.1 min. In summary, nurses highlighted the need for administering vaccines using RTU formulations for ensuring the safety of the recipients, preventing errors, and saving time during the vaccination process.
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.