ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024
Understanding paediatric COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic: a prospective cohort and a population-based registry study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical Evaluation of the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Child Health and Wellbeing and Suggested Preparedness for Future Pandemics-A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of "naturalness" value-based narrative intervention on vaccination acceptance in two randomized controlled trials.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- 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
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the early demonstrated safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in children, uptake was slow throughout the pandemic and remains low globally. Understanding vaccine refusal could provide insights to improving vaccine uptake in future pandemics. Methods: In a population-wide registry of all COVID-19 paediatric vaccination appointments, we used interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the impact of public policies. In a population-based cohort of adults, we used population attributable fractions to assess the individual and joint contributions of potential determinants to paediatric COVID-19 vaccination, and used mediation analysis to identify modifiable mediators between political views and paediatric vaccination. Findings: School vaccination requirements were associated with an increase in vaccination appointments by 278.7% (95% CI 85.3-673.9) in adolescents aged 12-17 and 112.8% (27.6-255.0) in children aged 5-11. Government-mandated vaccine pass, required for entry into restaurants, shopping malls and supermarkets, was associated with increased vaccination appointments by 108.7% (26.6-244.0) in adolescents. The following four determinants may explain 82.5% (63.5-100.0) of the reasons why children were unvaccinated: familial political views, vaccine hesitancy for children, mistrust in doctors and academics, and vaccine misconceptions. The influence of political views may be mitigated since 95.9% (76.4-100.0) of its association with vaccine reluctance for adolescents was mediated by modifiable factors such as mistrust in health authorities and low vaccine confidence. Interpretation: School vaccination requirements and vaccine passes were associated with increased vaccine uptake. Clinicians should recognise that factors beyond health, such as political views, can influence paediatric vaccine uptake to a significant extent. Nonetheless, such influences could be mitigated by targeted interventions and public policies. Funding: Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee, and Health Bureau.
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.