Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37250080›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Acceptance of recommended vaccinations during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study in Southern Italy.

Francesca Licata, Marika Romeo, Concetta Riillo, Gianfranco Di Gennaro, Aida Bianco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Factors Associated With Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Real-World Evidence-Based Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

5 authors.

Francesca LicataDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Marika RomeoDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Concetta RiilloDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Gianfranco Di GennaroDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Aida BiancoDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia", Catanzaro, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vaccine administration is a recommended, safe, and effective measure to protect pregnant women against vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). Despite available guidance, maternal immunization rates for vaccination against influenza and with the reduced antigen content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) in Italy remain incredibly low. The primary goal of the study was to explore what Italian pregnant women knew about VPDs and immunization during pregnancy and what factors affected their decision to be vaccinated. Methods: This cross-sectional study took place between October 2021 and April 2022 in the Southern part of Italy. All consecutive pregnant women, from those attending the selected facilities on randomly selected days, were approached to request participation. The inclusion criteria for participation were age ≥18 years, the ability to understand, speak, and read Italian, and being pregnant at any gestational age. The questionnaire, using a combination of checkboxes and free text answers, consisted of 32 items divided into five parts and lasted ~10 min. Results: The results showed that 61% knew that the influenza vaccine is recommended and 48.7% knew that influenza could be risky during pregnancy; 74.1% wrongly reported that the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended during pregnancy. Seven out of 10 pregnant women believed that strong evidence supported the safety of vaccinations during pregnancy, and more than half (55.6%) thought they were at increased risk of severe illness with COVID-19. Women in the sample believed that vaccines received during pregnancy pose a risk of adverse events to the unborn child with a median value of 6 (IQR 3-9), on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. Similarly, the fear of contracting pertussis and influenza during pregnancy showed a median value of 6 (IQR 3-9) and 5 (IQR 3-8), respectively. Only 21.1% and 36.5% of women received influenza and Tdap vaccines during pregnancy. Conclusion: Unrealistic risk perception with a negative attitude toward vaccines in pregnancy and a low percentage of vaccinated pregnant women confirm the urgency of training women to make informed choices to increase overall vaccine uptake.

Indexed as

COVID-19Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansItalyPregnancyVaccinationDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesInfluenza VaccinesCOVID-19 vaccineinfluenzapregnancypregnant womenTdapvaccinationvaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs)

Identifiers

PMID37250080
PMCPMC10213683

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.