Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36180099›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2022

Bargaining and gendered authority: a framework to understand household decision-making about childhood vaccines in the Philippines.

Jonas Wachinger, Mark Donald C Reñosa, Vivienne Endoma, Mila F Aligato, Jhoys Landicho-Guevarra, Jeniffer Landicho, Thea Andrea Bravo, Shannon A McMahon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Public health challenges · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Jonas WachingerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany jonas.wachinger@uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5480-3138
Mark Donald C ReñosaHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7414-7174
Vivienne EndomaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine - Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-0225-3939
Mila F AligatoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine - Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-5862-5324
Jhoys Landicho-GuevarraDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine - Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-0152-2658
Jeniffer LandichoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine - Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-4261-9296
Thea Andrea BravoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine - Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0003-3747-3103
Shannon A McMahonHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8634-9283

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTargeted vaccination promotion efforts aimed at building vaccine confidence require an in-depth understanding of how and by whom decisions about vaccinating children are made. While several studies have highlighted how parents interact with other stakeholders when discussing childhood vaccination, less is known about the way in which vaccination uptake is negotiated within households.

methodsWe conducted 44 in-depth interviews with caregivers of children under five in the Philippines who had delayed or refused vaccination. Interviews were conducted between August 2020 and March 2021 and were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Notions of intra-household vaccination bargaining emerged early during systematic debriefings and were probed more pointedly throughout data collection.

resultsParents as well as paternal and maternal families proved to be dominant stakeholders in intra-household bargaining for childhood vaccination. Although bargaining among these stakeholders was based on engrained, gender-based power imbalances, disadvantaged stakeholders could draw on a range of interrelated sources of bargaining power to nevertheless shape decision-making. Sources of bargaining power included, in descending order of their relevance for vaccination, (1) physical presence at the household (at the time of vaccination decision-making), (2) interest in the topic of vaccination and conviction of one's own position, (3) previous vaccination and caregiving experience, and (4) access to household resources (including finances). The degree to which each household member could draw on these sources of bargaining power varied considerably over time and across households.

conclusionOur findings highlight how bargaining due to intra-household disagreement coins decisions regarding childhood vaccination. Considering the risks for public health associated with vaccine hesitancy globally, we advocate for acknowledging intra-household dynamics in research and practice, such as by purposefully targeting household members with decision-making capacity in vaccination promotion efforts, aligning promotion efforts with available bargaining capacity or further empowering those convinced of vaccination.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsVaccinationChildHumansNegotiatingParentsPhilippinesChild healthHealth education and promotionPublic HealthQualitative studyVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36180099
PMCPMC9528616

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.