Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36560425›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

"Maternal Vaccination Greatly Depends on Your Trust in the Healthcare System": A Qualitative Study on the Acceptability of Maternal Vaccines among Pregnant Women and Healthcare Workers in Barcelona, Spain.

Anna Marín-Cos, Elena Marbán-Castro, Ivana Nedic, Mara Ferrari, Esther Crespo-Mirasol, Laia Ferrer Ventura, Berta Noya Zamora, Victoria Fumadó, Clara Menéndez, Cristina Martínez Bueno and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna Marín-CosISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Elena Marbán-CastroISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9715-0595
Ivana NedicISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2674-1782
Mara FerrariISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9356-3851
Esther Crespo-MirasolBCNatal-Barcelona Center of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3800-3672
Laia Ferrer VenturaASSIR Esquerra, Gerència Territorial de Barcelona, Institut Català de la Salut, 08015 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2358-3400
Berta Noya ZamoraASSIR Esquerra, Gerència Territorial de Barcelona, Institut Català de la Salut, 08015 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9360-1718
Victoria FumadóISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Clara MenéndezISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina Martínez BuenoASSIR Barcelona Ciutat, Gerència Territorial de Barcelona, Institut Català de la Salut i Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Anna LlupiàISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Marta LópezBCNatal-Barcelona Center of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Anna GoncéBCNatal-Barcelona Center of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Azucena BardajíISGlobal, Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5135-0540
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESHospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona · ESInstitut Català de la Salut · ESManhiça Health Research Centre · MZ

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI19/01346
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health in 2019. Health promotion and education have been seen to improve knowledge and uptake of vaccinations in pregnancy. This qualitative study was conducted based on phenomenology, a methodological approach to understand first-hand experiences, and grounded theory, an inductive approach to analyse data, where theoretical generalisations emerge. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with pregnant women attending antenatal care services and healthcare workers (HCWs) in Barcelona, Spain. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded, and notes were taken. Inductive thematic analysis was performed, and data were manually coded. Pertussis was reported as the most trusted vaccine among pregnant women due to its long-standing background as a recommended vaccine in pregnancy. The influenza vaccine was regarded as less important since it was perceived to cause mild disease. The COVID-19 vaccine was the least trustworthy for pregnant women due to uncertainties about effectiveness, health effects in the mid- and long-term, the fast development of the vaccine mRNA technology, and the perceptions of limited data on vaccine safety. However, the necessity to be vaccinated was justified by pregnant women due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The recommendations provided by HCW and the established relationship between the HCW, particularly midwives, and pregnant women were the main factors affecting decision-making. The role of mass media was perceived as key to helping provide reliable messages about the need for vaccines during pregnancy. Overall, vaccines administered during pregnancy were perceived as great tools associated with better health and improved quality of life. Pregnancy was envisioned as a vulnerable period in women's lives that required risk-benefits assessments for decision-making about maternal vaccinations. A holistic approach involving the community and society was considered crucial for health education regarding maternal vaccines in support of the work conducted by HCWs.

Indexed as

acceptabilitybarriersclinical trialsfacilitatorshesitancymaternal vaccinespregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36560425
PMCPMC9783547
OpenAlexW4310211335

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.