ArticleBMJ open2022
Continuing education programme on vaccines for primary healthcare professionals: mixed-method protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVaccination is a fundamental intervention in disease prevention; therefore, the advice and recommendations of health professionals have a major influence on the population's decision to be vaccinated or not. Professionals must have sufficient competencies to carry out their work and recommend vaccination with evidence-based knowledge. The aim is to design and validate a strategy to improve professional competencies in vaccination to positively influence adherence and increase vaccination rates in the population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Training will be designed based on evidence and previous studies and piloted with healthcare providers. To test changes in knowledge, a pretest and post-test will be conducted. To test feasibility, a think-aloud method will be used with participants and triangulated with focus groups using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. Transfer will be measured using the questionnaire 'factors for the indirect evaluation of transfer' and an efficacy questionnaire 1½ months later; for satisfaction, an ad hoc questionnaire will be used. A summative approach will be used for the analysis of the focus groups and descriptive and bivariate statistics for the questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Andalusian Research Ethics Committee, Spain (approval number: 0524-N-20). The results will be made available to the public at journal publications and scientific conferences.
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.