Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36680040›Full record

ArticleVaccines2023

Analysis of Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of Health Care Workers towards Vaccine-Preventable Diseases and Recommended Vaccinations: An Observational Study in a Teaching Hospital.

Marianna Riccio, Mattia Marte, Valentin Imeshtari, Francesca Vezza, Vanessa India Barletta, David Shaholli, Corrado Colaprico, Maria Di Chiara, Elena Caresta, Gianluca Terrin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marianna RiccioDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Mattia MarteDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Valentin ImeshtariDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Francesca VezzaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Vanessa India BarlettaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
David ShaholliDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0902-0302
Corrado ColapricoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Maria Di ChiaraDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6916-7800
Elena CarestaPediatric Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Umberto I Policlinico, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Gianluca TerrinDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3541-2876
Paola PapoffPediatric Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Umberto I Policlinico, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe La TorreDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1233-2040
Sapienza University of Rome · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recommended vaccinations are the cheapest and most effective measure to reduce the risk of transmission and related complications, especially in high-risk healthcare settings. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of HCWs in relation to national recommendations. Methods: A transversal study was conducted through administration of a questionnaire by personal interview. The following care units were involved: Paediatric, Neonatal, Cardiac Surgery and General Intensive Care Units and Infectious Diseases Unit. Results: The study sample comprised 308 HCWs. Half the sample were aware of the vaccination recommendations, with occupation and age found to be predictive factors (OR = 9.38, 95%CI: 2.07−42.41; OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.22−0.60). A higher percentage defined the diseases as a risk for their patients’ health, although this perception was lower in the over-40 age group. In several cases, there were statistically significant differences between the care units (p < 0.001). Around three-quarters of the sample agreed that vaccination should be mandatory; willingness to undergo a future booster vaccination was statistically correlated with the variables of age and care unit (p < 0.001, p = 0.03). Conclusion: The protection of health in the workplace can be achieved through some strategic actions, such as the implementation of educational strategies, and protocols for the monitoring of immunocompetence and the improvement of vaccination.

Indexed as

attitudesbehaviourhealthcare workersknowledgerecommendationsvaccination

Identifiers

PMID36680040
PMCPMC9867139
OpenAlexW4316690581

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.