Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34580071›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2021

Parent-level barriers to uptake of childhood vaccination: a global overview of systematic reviews.

Jessica Kaufman, Jane Tuckerman, Carissa Bonner, David N Durrheim, Daniel Costa, Lyndal Trevena, Susan Thomas, Margie Danchin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  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

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica KaufmanVaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia jess.kaufman@mcri.edu.au.
Jane TuckermanVaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Carissa BonnerFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David N DurrheimHealth Protection, Hunter New England Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Daniel CostaFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lyndal TrevenaFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Susan ThomasHealth Protection, Hunter New England Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Margie DanchinVaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUHunter New England Local Health District · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnderstanding barriers to childhood vaccination is crucial to inform effective interventions for maximising uptake. Published systematic reviews include different primary studies, producing varying lists of barriers. To make sense of this diverse body of literature, a comprehensive level of summary and synthesis is necessary. This overview of systematic reviews maps all potential parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination identified in systematic reviews. It synthesises these into a conceptual framework to inform development of a vaccine barriers assessment tool.

methodsWe applied Joanna Briggs methodology, searching the Epistemonikos review database and reference lists of included reviews to June 2020. Systematic reviews of qualitative or quantitative data on parent-level barriers to routine vaccination in preschool-aged children were included. Reviews addressing influenza, reporting non-modifiable determinants or reporting barriers not relevant to parents were excluded. Where possible, we extracted review details, barrier descriptions and the number, setting and design of primary studies. Two authors independently screened search results and inductively coded barrier descriptions.

resultsWe screened 464 papers, identifying 30 relevant reviews with minimal overlap. Fourteen reviews included qualitative and quantitative primary studies, seven included quantitative and seven included qualitative studies only. Two did not report included study designs. Two-thirds of reviews (n=20; 67%) only included primary studies from high-income countries. We extracted 573 barrier descriptions and inductively coded these into 64 unique barriers in six overarching categories: (1) Access, (2) Clinic or Health System Barriers, (3) Concerns and Beliefs, (4) Health Perceptions and Experiences, (5) Knowledge and Information and (6) Social or Family Influence.

conclusionsA global overview of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccine uptake identified 64 barriers to inform development of a new comprehensive survey instrument. This instrument will assess both access and acceptance barriers to more accurately diagnose the reasons for under-vaccination in children in different settings.

Indexed as

ParentsVaccinationChildChild, PreschoolDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchSystematic Reviews as Topicchild healthimmunisationpublic healthsystematic reviewvaccines

Identifiers

PMID34580071
PMCPMC8477248
OpenAlexW3204495442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.