Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38455879›Full record

ArticleCanada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada2023

Communicating effectively with patients about vaccination: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Chloé Desjardins, Manon Denis-LeBlanc, Christine Paquette Cannalonga, Malek Rahmani, Teresa A Gawargy, Pierre-Marc Dion, Jennifer Lacroix Harasym, Salomon Fotsing, Maria Cherba, Nigèle Langlois and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chloé DesjardinsFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Manon Denis-LeBlancFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Christine Paquette CannalongaFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Malek RahmaniFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Teresa A GawargyFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Pierre-Marc DionFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Jennifer Lacroix HarasymFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Salomon FotsingFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Maria CherbaDepartment of Communication, Faculty of Arts, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Nigèle LangloisHealth Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, ON.
Sylvain BoetFrancophone Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
University of Ottawa · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Good communication between healthcare professionals and their patients is essential to enlighten the benefits and risks of vaccination. Despite the availability of effective vaccines, reluctance prevails, sometimes fuelled by sub-optimal communication leading to a lack of trust. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a communication strategy for which healthcare professionals are trained has yet to be carried out. Objective: Systematic review of studies with a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to define and evaluate the impact of healthcare professionals' communication on patients' vaccine adherence. Methods: We performed a structured search on Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The studies selected include those involving healthcare professionals authorized to administer vaccines according to Canadian guidelines. Primary outcomes include vaccination rate or vaccine hesitancy rate. Results: Nine articles were included. Five studies (n=5) reported intervention effectiveness according to vaccine adherence. The results are largely represented by parental vaccine hesitancy for human papillomavirus (HPV) or childhood vaccination, while three studies (n=3) target the general population. The risk of bias relative to the studies is either low (n=7) or of some concern (n=2). Conclusion: The effectiveness of communication varies according to the studies and knowledge acquired through training. Future studies will need to examine communication with healthcare professionals in order to establish a consensus on optimal and appropriate training.

Indexed as

communicationrandomized controlled trialsvaccine hesitancyvaccines

Identifiers

PMID38455879
PMCPMC10917362
OpenAlexW4385753333

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.