Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34198208›Full record

ArticleMidwifery2021

Maternal vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic:A qualitative interview study with UK pregnant women.

Emma Anderson, Amberly Brigden, Anna Davies, Emily Shepherd, Jenny Ingram

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Midwifery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Emma AndersonCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 1NU. Electronic address: emma.anderson@bristol.ac.uk.
Amberly BrigdenCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 1NU.
Anna DaviesCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 1NU.
Emily ShepherdCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 1NU.
Jenny IngramCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 1NU.
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is suboptimal uptake of recommended maternal vaccines (pertussis and influenza) during pregnancy in the UK. The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare services, and potentially vaccine coverage, and brought the need for new vaccines to be tested and rolled out.

objectivesTo explore: i) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on pregnant women's access to, and attitudes towards, routine maternal vaccines and; ii) women's attitudes towards testing Covid-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their personal willingness to take part in such a trial.

designQualitative interview study with pregnant women in the Bristol and surrounding area (UK).

methodsSemi-structured telephone/videoconference interviews were conducted (following a topic guide), transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis.

resultsThirty-one pregnant women (selected for demographic range) were interviewed in April/May 2020. Participants felt the pandemic had elevated the importance of routine maternal vaccines, though women were concerned about safety management around appointment attendance. Women were wary of receiving a new Covid-19 vaccine, with most perceiving it as riskier than Covid-19 itself.

conclusionsIt is important to maximise the safety and efficiency of maternity appointments to encourage uptake of routine maternal vaccines, and to communicate this well. For pregnant women to gain a new vaccine or participate in a vaccine trial, they need to be convinced that the risk posed by the virus is greater than any risk of receiving a new vaccine.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansMaternal Health ServicesPandemicsPregnancyPregnant PeopleUnited KingdomCOVID-19 VaccinesCovid-19Maternal health servicesPandemicsPregnant womenQualitative researchVaccines

Identifiers

PMID34198208
PMCPMC8192261
OpenAlexW3169440857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.