ArticleBMC public health2022
Dynamics in public perceptions and media coverage during an ongoing outbreak of meningococcal W disease in the Netherlands.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meningococcal vaccination counts and public attention: A time-series study from Türkiye.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Digital Marketing: A Unique Multidisciplinary Approach towards the Elimination of Viral Hepatitis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrom 2015 to 2018, the Netherlands faced an outbreak of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) caused by serogroup W. To counter the rise in infections, the government introduced a catch-up menACWY vaccination campaign for teenagers in 2018 and 2019. The outbreak situation induced substantial media attention and a run on menACWY vaccines outside the vaccination campaign. This study aimed to gain insights into the dynamics of public perceptions of and responses to the outbreak and the menACWY vaccination, and into the media coverage about the outbreak.
methodsThree repeated surveys (N = 1110) between 2017 and 2019 were sent to parents of teenagers invited for a menACWY catch-up vaccination, other parents, and individuals with no under-age children. These surveys assessed IMD risk perceptions, attitudes towards the menACWY vaccination, trust in involved institutions, and willingness to vaccinate with the menACWY vaccine. Changes in the public perceptions and responses were studied with linear multilevel regression analyses. In addition, 103 national newspaper articles from the period 2017-2019 were thematically coded with themes about IMD and the menACWY vaccination.
resultsThe survey results showed clear increases in perceived IMD severity, positive attitude towards the menACWY vaccination, and willingness to vaccinate over time. Perceived IMD vulnerability remained low across all three waves, and trust in involved institutions increased slightly. Differences between the survey groups were limited. The newspaper articles discussed the rise in infections extensively, the disease symptoms, and the possible fatal outcome of IMD. In addition, while many articles discussed the menACWY vaccine shortage, few discussed the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.
conclusionThe real-time insights into the interrelated dynamics of public perceptions, responses, and media coverage provide an integrated portrait of the social developments during this outbreak. The focus on IMD severity and the absence of doubt in the public discussion about vaccine safety may have played an important role in the societal response to this outbreak and the recommended vaccine.
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.