Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38351958›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

A survey-based assessment of rates and covariates of mpox diagnosis and vaccination provides evidence to refine eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the Netherlands.

Philippe C G Adam, Eline L M Op de Coul, Paul Zantkuijl, Maria Xiridou, Hanna Bos, Cor Blom, Itsada Ketsuwan, Margreet J M Te Wierik, Silke David, John B F de Wit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Factors potentially contributing to the decline of the mpox outbreak in the Netherlands, 2022 and 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024
    Observational
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Philippe C G AdamCentre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Eline L M Op de CoulNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Paul ZantkuijlSoa Aids Nederland, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maria XiridouNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Hanna BosSoa Aids Nederland, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Cor BlomSoa Aids Nederland, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Itsada KetsuwanIPSR Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand.
Margreet J M Te WierikNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Silke DavidNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
John B F de WitDepartment of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLAidsfonds · NLUNSW Sydney · AUUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The 2022 multicountry mpox outbreaks predominantly affected gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in non-endemic countries, including in the Netherlands. We conducted a survey-based assessment of the alignment between the risk factors associated with mpox diagnosis among GBMSM in the Netherlands and the eligibility criteria used in 2022 for vaccinating this group, with the aim to refine these criteria. Methods: An online self-report survey was conducted among adult GBMSM in the Netherlands between 29 July and 30 August 2022, corresponding to the first month of the Dutch mpox vaccination campaign. GBMSM were recruited via advertisements on social media and gay dating apps. Participants reported on their sexual behaviour, mpox diagnosis, and/or (initial) mpox vaccination since the start of the outbreak. Covariables of mpox diagnosis and vaccination were assessed using logistic regression analyses. Results: Of the 2,460 participants, 73 (3.0%, 95% CI 2.3-3.6%) were diagnosed with mpox and 485 (19.7%, 95% CI 18.1-21.3%) had received (initial) mpox vaccination. Using sample weighting, we estimated that, of the GBMSM population aged 18-80 years in the Netherlands, 1.1% (95% CI 0.7-1.6%) had been diagnosed with mpox and 7.8% (95% CI 6.8-8.9%) had received (initial) vaccination. HIV-PrEP use, living with HIV, reporting ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months, and sex in sex venues/parties in the past 2 months were independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis. Except for sex in sex venues/parties, these variables were also independently associated with mpox vaccination. Conclusion: This study provides novel evidence regarding the degree to which the 2022 eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination align with the risk factors for mpox among GBMSM in the Netherlands. The findings contribute to a refinement of the eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination, to which sex in sex venues/parties should be added.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsMpox, MonkeypoxPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSexual and Gender MinoritiesSmallpox VaccineAdultHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleNetherlandsSexual BehaviorSmallpox Vaccinebisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM)gaymen who have sex with men (MSM)monkeypoxmpoxmpox vaccinationMPXV infectionrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID38351958
PMCPMC10861664
OpenAlexW4391359088

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.