ArticleBMC public health2022
Replacing vaccine paper package inserts: a multi-country questionnaire study on the acceptability of an electronic replacement in different target groups.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Preferences for Electronic Versus Paper Patient Information Leaflets: A Survey Among Patients in Sweden.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Observational
- Parental doubts regarding childhood vaccinations after the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study from Poland.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Assessing Readability and Usability of Electronic Medicine Package Leaflets in South Korea: A Mixed-Methods Study.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2025Article
- Acceptance of Electronic Labeling for Medicinal Product Information Among Malaysian Hospital Patients: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the European Union it is mandatory to include paper package leaflets (PPL) with all medicines, including vaccines, to inform the recipient. However, it is difficult to meet the necessity for localized PPLs in each of the 24 official European languages. Replacing PPLs with electronic versions offers many advantages including redistribution across nations, reduced storage space, accessibility by the visually impaired, easily updated information or the addition of video content. We wanted to assess the attitudes of patients (vaccine recipients or their parents) to the potential of replacing PPL with electronic versions.
methodsWe surveyed vaccinees or their parents in four European countries-Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria and France-for their actual use of vaccine PPLs and their opinions about switching to an electronic package leaflet. Our survey was conducted online because of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in 2518 responses to a questionnaire targeted at three specific groups with particular information needs: parents of young children, pregnant women and the elderly (≥ 60 years).
resultsOur main findings are that currently vaccine PPLs are rarely used and frequently unavailable for the vaccinee. Across the four countries surveyed 55-82% of vaccinees would accept an electronic version, as did 64% when there was an option to request a printout of the leaflet.
conclusionsWe found that switching to electronic versions of vaccine PPLs is an acceptable alternative for the public, potentially increasing the quality and amount of information reaching vaccinees while eliminating some barriers to redistribution of vaccines between countries.
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.