ArticleVaccines2023
Dutch Healthcare Professionals' Opinion on the Allocation of Responsibilities concerning Prescribing and Administering Medically Indicated Vaccines to Immunocompromised Patients.
Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovation in active and passive immunisation of people who are immunocompromised: a call to action.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpecific vaccines are indicated for immunocompromised patients (ICPs) due to their vulnerability to infections. Recommendation of these vaccines by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a crucial facilitator for vaccine uptake. Unfortunately, the responsibilities to recommend and administer these vaccines are not clearly allocated among HCPs involved in the care of adult ICPs. We aimed to evaluate HCPs' opinions on directorship and their role in facilitating the uptake of medically indicated vaccines as a basis to improve vaccination practices.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was performed among in-hospital medical specialists (MSs), general practitioners (GPs), and public health specialists (PHSs) in the Netherlands to assess their opinion on directorship and the implementation of vaccination care. Additionally, perceived barriers, facilitators, and possible solutions to improve vaccine uptake were investigated.
resultsIn total, 306 HCPs completed the survey. HCPs almost unanimously (98%) reported that according to them, the primary treating physician is responsible for recommending medically indicated vaccines. Administering these vaccines was seen as a more shared responsibility. The most important barriers experienced by HCPs in recommending and administering were reimbursement problems, a lack of a national vaccination registration system, insufficient collaboration among HCPs, and logistical problems. MSs, GPs and PHSs all mentioned the same three solutions as important strategies to improve vaccination practices, i.e., reimbursement of vaccines, reliable and easily accessible registration of received vaccines, and arrangements for collaboration among the different HCPs that are involved in care.
conclusionThe improvement in vaccination practices in ICPs should focus on better collaboration among MSs, GPs, and PHSs, who should know each other's expertise; clear agreement on responsibility; reimbursement for vaccines; and the availability of clear registration of vaccination history.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.