Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35698133›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Knowledge and decisions about maternal immunisation by pregnant women in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Amber Young, Nadia A Charania, Natalie Gauld, Pauline Norris, Nikki Turner, Esther Willing

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amber YoungDivision of Health Sciences , Kōhatu-Centre for Hauora Māori, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, PO Box 56 , 9054, Dunedin, New Zealand. amber.young@otago.ac.nz.
Nadia A CharaniaDepartment of Public Health, School of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Natalie GauldDepartment of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Pauline NorrisVa'a o Tautai - Centre for Pacific Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Nikki TurnerImmunisation Advisory Centre, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Esther WillingDivision of Health Sciences , Kōhatu-Centre for Hauora Māori, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, PO Box 56 , 9054, Dunedin, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZAuckland University of Technology · NZ

Funding

Health Research Council of New Zealand 20/1242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaternal vaccinations for influenza and pertussis are recommended in New Zealand to protect mothers and their infant from infection. However, maternal immunisation coverage in New Zealand is suboptimal. Furthermore, there is unacceptable inequitable maternal immunisation rates across the country with Māori and Pacific women having significantly lower maternal immunisation rates than those of other New Zealanders.

methodsThis research set out to explore what pregnant/recently pregnant Māori and Pacific women knew about immunisation during pregnancy and what factors influenced their decision to be vaccinated. A semi-structured interview guide was developed with questions focusing on knowledge of pertussis and influenza vaccination during pregnancy and decision-making. Māori and Pacific women aged over 16 years were purposively sampled and interviewed in Dunedin and Gisborne, New Zealand between May and August 2021. Interviews were analysed following a directed qualitative content approach. Data were arranged into coding nodes based on the study aims (deductive analysis) informed by previous literature and within these participant experiences were inductively coded into themes and subthemes.

resultsNot all women were aware of maternal vaccine recommendations or they diseases they protected against. Many underestimated how dangerous influenza and pertussis could be and some were more concerned about potential harms of the vaccine. Furthermore, understanding potential harms of infection and protection provided by vaccination did not necessarily mean women would choose to be vaccinated. Those who decided to vaccinate felt well-informed, had vaccination recommended by their healthcare provider, and did so to protect their and their infant's health. Those who decided against vaccination were concerned about safety of the vaccines, lacked the information they needed, were not offered the vaccine, or did not consider vaccination a priority.

conclusionsThere is a lack of understanding about vaccine benefits and risks of vaccine-preventable diseases which can result in the reinforcement of negative influences such as the fear of side effects. Furthermore, if vaccine benefits are not understood, inaccessibility of vaccines and the precedence of other life priorities may prevent uptake. Being well-informed and supported to make positive decisions to vaccinate in pregnancy is likely to improve vaccine coverage in Māori and Pacific Island New Zealanders.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesPregnancy Complications, InfectiousWhooping CoughFemaleHumansImmunizationInfantMothersNew ZealandPertussis VaccinePregnancyPregnant PeopleVaccinationInfluenza VaccinesPertussis VaccineHealth inequityInformed choiceMāori healthMaternal immunisationMaternal vaccinationPacific health

Identifiers

PMID35698133
PMCPMC9192336
OpenAlexW4282821707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.