ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021
Shared clinical decision-making on vaccines: out of sight, out of mind.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- RSV vaccination uptake among adults aged 60 years and older in the United States during the 2023-2025 vaccination seasons.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- "I think of it as planting seeds": challenging patient-provider discussions about COVID-19 vaccination: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- From Trust to Choice: A Cross-Sectional Survey of How Patient Trust in Pharmacists Shapes Willingness and Vaccination Decision Control Preferences.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Vaccine hesitancy and decision regret among nurses in oncology settings in Italy: a cluster-based profile analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease and Vaccination in Adults Aged 60 Years and Older.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical decision support systems, which provide automated reminders in electronic health systems, are designed to provide physicians and other health professionals support in clinical decision-making. New clinical guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on a new category of recommendations referred to as "shared clinical decision-making" have left providers struggling to interpret how to best implement recommendations for adult vaccines. The issue at hand is how to ensure that a conversation between the patient and provider occurs. While traditional clinical decision support systems have driven immunization for years, these systems support a binary default opt-in process. The goal for shared decision-making is the discussion rather than the vaccination. The recommended provider-patient conversations need to be supported with both provider guidance as well as tools to ensure vaccines are not omitted from the conversations, particularly as future vaccine candidates progress through the vaccine development pipeline.
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.