ArticleVaccines2024
Differences in Vaccination Consultation Preferred by Primary Health Care Workers and Residents in Community Settings.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the preference of primary HCWs and residents on vaccination consultation in community health services to provide evidence for vaccine hesitancy intervention strategies.
methodsA discrete choice model (DCM) was constructed to evaluate the preference difference between primary HCWs and residents on vaccination consultation in community health services in China during May-July 2022.
resultsA total of 282 residents and 204 HCWs were enrolled in this study. The residents preferred consulting with an HCW-led approach (β = 2.168), with specialized content (β = 0.954), and accompanied by telephone follow-up (β = 1.552). In contrast, the HCWs preferred face-to-face consultation (β = 0.540) with an HCW-led approach (β = 0.458) and specialized content (β = 0.409), accompanied by telephone follow-up (β = 0.831). College residents and residents with underlying self-reported disease may be near-critically inclined to choose traditional consultation (an offline, face-to-face consultation with standardized content and more prolonged duration) rather than a new-media consulting group (an online consultation with specialized content within 5 min). Urban HCWs preferred long-term consultation groups (the resident-led offline consultation with follow-up lasting more than 5 min). In contrast, rural HCWs preferred efficient consultation (the HCW-led, short-duration, standardized offline consultation mode).
conclusionThe selection preference for vaccine consultation reveals a gap between providers and demanders, with different groups exhibiting distinct preferences. Identifying these targeted gaps can help design more acceptable and efficient interventions, increasing their likelihood of success and leading to better resource allocation for policymakers to develop targeted vaccination policies.
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.