Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187436›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

How to increase awareness of additional vaccinations; the case of maternal pertussis vaccination.

K van Zoonen, W L M Ruijs, H E De Melker, M E J Bongers, L Mollema

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

K van ZoonenCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Kim.van.zoonen@rivm.nl.
W L M RuijsCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
H E De MelkerCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
M E J BongersCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
L MollemaCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective and safe vaccines are available outside national immunization programs (NIP). Increased awareness and vaccine uptake can improve public health. Before the inclusion of maternal pertussis vaccination (MPV) in the Dutch NIP in December 2019, extra communication efforts were undertaken. Here we examine the success of these efforts, investigating women's awareness of and their decision-making process regarding MPV.

methodsBetween December 2018 and January 2019, one year before the introduction of MPV in the NIP, and about three years after MPV was recommended by the Dutch Health Council, pregnant and non-pregnant women (i.e. child younger than two years) were invited to fill out an online questionnaire. Participant's decision-making processes regarding MPV were assessed with an adapted Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM), including stages of awareness, engagement, information-seeking, and vaccination behaviour. Furthermore, factors related to the decision-making process were examined.

resultsIn total, 942 women were included, of whom 62% were non-pregnant. Most of the pregnant and nonpregnant women were aware of MPV during pregnancy (respectively 69 and 56%). Most aware women had heard about MPV through their midwife and the Public Health Institute (PHI) website. Women unaware of MPV reported a need for information, preferably from their midwives. Most aware women felt MPV was important to them (88%) and were classified as "engaged". Of the eligible and "engaged" pregnant women, 58% were vaccinated, versus 38% of "engaged" non-pregnant women.

conclusionsAs the most preferred and trusted source of information, midwives are essential to increasing awareness of MPV. The PHI website is considered to be a reliable information source and is often consulted. To increase awareness, appropriate healthcare workers should be encouraged to actively inform target groups about available, additional vaccinations.

Indexed as

Influenza VaccinesWhooping CoughChildFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePertussis VaccinePregnancyPregnant PeopleSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationInfluenza VaccinesPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID34187436
PMCPMC8244209
OpenAlexW3176899285

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.