ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2021
Mandatory vaccination in France: perception by outpatients and self-evaluation of its impact on their vaccine confidence.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A postpartum intervention for vaccination promotion by midwives using motivational interviews reduces mothers' vaccine hesitancy, south-eastern France, 2021 to 2022: a randomised controlled trial.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023Trial
- Assessment of training of general practice interns in motivational interviews about vaccination.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- COVID-19 vaccination coverage among healthcare workers in obstetrics and gynecology during the first three months of vaccination campaign: a cross-sectional study in Jiangsu province, China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In France, for many vaccines, vaccine coverage is below the 95% cutoff. One reason is mistrust from a growing proportion of the general population toward vaccination. In 2017, a new law was promulgated, extending the number of mandatory vaccines from 3 to 11. Our objectives were twofold: to assess the population's perception of the extension of mandatory vaccination (MV) 1 year after its introduction, and to evaluate how it affected their vaccine confidence. We performed a descriptive cross-sectional study using a questionnaire for adults who consulted a family physician in south-east France. Overall, 453 questionnaires were analyzed. The median age of respondents (female 78.4%) was 43 years; 85% had children. On a 0 to 100 scale, respondents evaluated their confidence in vaccination at a median of 75 (IQR 50-90). For 60% of respondents, MV was a good public health measure; for 47%, it was poorly explained by the Ministry of Health; for 46%, it was a violation of personal freedom; and for 49%, it resulted from pharmaceutical industry lobbying. When asked about the influence of the extension of MV, only 26.2% declared that it had changed (a little/a lot) their opinion, and this change was for the majority (74.7%) toward less confidence. Respondents who declared an increased level of confidence already had a better perception of vaccination (and inversely). In conclusion, our results show that MV only changed the perception of vaccination among a small proportion of respondents. For most respondents, MV reinforced their initial views about vaccination.
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.