Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33996389›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021

Health care professionals' preference for a fully liquid, ready-to-use hexavalent vaccine in Spain.

Inmaculada Cuesta Esteve, Pilar Fernández Fernández, Sonia López Palacios, María José Menor Rodríguez, Hosanna Parra Vino, Begoña Reyero Ortega, Maria Luz Nieto Nevot, Georgina Drago Manchón, Juan Luis López-Belmonte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Inmaculada Cuesta EsteveVaccine Expert Group of the General Council of Nurses, Calle Fuente del Rey, s/n, 28023 Madrid, Spain.
Pilar Fernández FernándezGeneral Council of Nurses, Calle Fuente del Rey, s/n, 28023 Madrid, Spain.
Sonia López PalaciosVaccine Expert Group of the General Council of Nurses, Calle Fuente del Rey, s/n, 28023 Madrid, Spain.
María José Menor RodríguezVaccine Expert Group of the General Council of Nurses, Calle Fuente del Rey, s/n, 28023 Madrid, Spain.
Hosanna Parra VinoGroup of the General Council of Nurses, Calle Fuente del Rey, s/n, 28023 Madrid, Spain.
Begoña Reyero OrtegaGroup of the General Council of Nurses, Calle Fuente del Rey, s/n, 28023 Madrid, Spain.
Maria Luz Nieto NevotSanofi Pasteur, Calle de Martínez Villergas, 52, 28027 Madrid, Spain.
Georgina Drago ManchónSanofi Pasteur, Calle de Josep Pla, 2, 08019 Barcelona, Spain.
Juan Luis López-BelmonteSanofi Pasteur, Calle de Martínez Villergas, 52, 28027 Madrid, Spain.
Sanofi (Spain) · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DTaP, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (whooping cough)DTPa HBV-IPV, diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B recombinant (adsorbed)-inactivated poliomyelitis-adsorbed conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccineHB, hepatitis BHCP, healthcare professionalsHib, Haemophilus influenzae type bHPV, human papillomavirusICC/ESOMAR, International Chamber of Commerce/European Society for Opinion and Market ResearchIPV, inactivated polio vaccineLyophilized vaccinesMedication errorsMenACWY, meningococcal conjugate vaccineMenC, meningococcal C vaccineMM, measles, mumpsMMR, measles, mumps, rubellaPCV, pneumococcal conjugate vaccinePediatric vaccinationPrimary healthcareReady-to-use vaccinesRTU, ready-to-useTd, tetanus, diphtheriaVaccinationWHO, World Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID33996389
PMCPMC8105659
OpenAlexW3153178782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.