Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36503414›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: views and vaccination uptake rates in pregnancy, a mixed methods analysis from SAIL and the Born-In-Wales Birth Cohort.

Mohamed Mhereeg, Hope Jones, Jonathan Kennedy, Mike Seaborne, Michael Parker, Natasha Kennedy, Sarah Beeson, Ashley Akbari, Luisa Zuccolo, Alisha Davies and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antecedents and outcomes of a later attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis in females.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamed MhereegNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK. m.r.mhereeg@swansea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1241-9549
Hope JonesNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4312-476X
Jonathan KennedyNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1122-6502
Mike SeaborneNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4921-7556
Michael ParkerNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0350-6360
Natasha KennedyNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1500-7112
Sarah BeesonNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Ashley AkbariPopulation Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-0801
Luisa ZuccoloDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7049-3037
Alisha DaviesResearch and Evaluation Division, Public Health Wales, Swansea, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8066-7264
Sinead BrophyNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7417-2858
Swansea University · GBPublic Health Wales · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_20030Medical Research Council MC_PC_20051Medical Research Council MC_PC_20058Medical Research Council MC_PC_20059Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MR/S004084/1Medical Research Council MR/V028367/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccine hesitancy amongst pregnant women has been found to be a concern during past epidemics. This study aimed to (1) estimate COVID-19 vaccination rates among pregnant women in Wales and their association with age, ethnicity, and area of deprivation, using electronic health record (EHR) data linkage, and (2) explore pregnant women's views on receiving the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy using data from a survey recruiting via social media (Facebook, Twitter), through midwives, and posters in hospitals (Born-In-Wales Cohort).

methodsThis was a mixed-methods study utilising routinely collected linked data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank (Objective 1) and the Born-In-Wales Birth Cohort participants (Objective 2). Pregnant women were identified from 13th April 2021 to 31st December 2021. Survival analysis was utilised to examine and compare the length of time to vaccination uptake in pregnancy, and variation in uptake by; age, ethnic group, and deprivation area was examined using hazard ratios (HR) from Cox regression. Survey respondents were women who had a baby during the COVID-19 pandemic or were pregnant between 1st November 2021 and 24th March 2022 and participating in Born-In-Wales. Codebook thematic analysis was used to generate themes from an open-ended question on the survey.

resultsPopulation-level data linkage (objective 1): Within the population cohort, 8203 (32.7%) received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, 8572 (34.1%) remained unvaccinated throughout the follow-up period, and 8336 (33.2%) received the vaccine postpartum. Younger women (< 30 years) were less likely to have the vaccine, and those living in areas of high deprivation were also less likely to have the vaccine (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95). Asian and Other ethnic groups were 1.12 and 1.18 times more likely to have the vaccine in pregnancy compared with White women (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25) and (HR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37) respectively. Survey responses (objective 2): 207 (69%) of participants stated that they would be happy to have the vaccine during pregnancy. The remaining 94 (31%) indicated they would not have the vaccine during pregnancy. Reasons for having the vaccine included protecting self and baby, perceived risk level, and receipt of sufficient evidence and advice. Reasons for vaccine refusal included lack of research about long-term outcomes for the baby, anxiety about vaccines, inconsistent advice/information, and preference to wait until after the pregnancy.

conclusionPotentially only 1 in 3 pregnant women would have the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, even though 2 in 3 reported they would have the vaccination, thus it is critical to develop tailored strategies to increase its acceptance rate and decrease vaccine hesitancy. A targeted approach to vaccinations may be required for groups such as younger people and those living in higher deprivation areas.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultBirth CohortFemaleHumansPandemicsPregnancyVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19 vaccinationPregnancySAILVaccine hesitancyVaccine uptake

Identifiers

PMID36503414
PMCPMC9742024
OpenAlexW4311125628

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.