ArticleVaccines2024
Factors Associated with Vaccination Adequacy in People Living with HIV: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- HPV Vaccination Completion Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Using HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Hepatitis B Vaccination Rates and Risk Factors Affecting Vaccine Response in People Living with HIV in Turkey.Current HIV research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People living with HIV (PLHIV) are at greater risk of illness and death from vaccine-preventable diseases. This study aimed to identify the predictors associated with the recommended vaccination schedule for this group. This was a single-center cross-sectional study conducted in a large Brazilian municipality, evaluating the vaccination statuses of 645 PLHIV for nine immunizers. The primary outcome was the adequacy of the vaccination schedule. The vaccination status was assessed for the diphtheria/tetanus, hepatitis B, hepatitis A, measles/mumps/rubella, yellow fever, 13- and 23-valent pneumococcal, meningococcal C, and HPV vaccines. Those who had received all of the recommended vaccinations in accordance with the schedule established by the government at the time of the assessment, without any delays, were classified as having received an "adequate schedule". The independent variables included sociodemographic, clinical-epidemiological, and social vulnerability factors, analyzed by multiple logistic regression with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Only 47 individuals (7.3%) had an adequate vaccination schedule for all vaccines. The vaccines with the highest adequacy rate were diphtheria and tetanus (533; 82.6%), and the one with the lowest rate was measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) (243; 37.7%). The main predictors of a complete vaccination schedule were the age group, place of clinical follow-up, and where they received their last doses of vaccines. Educational interventions for PLHIV and health professionals are needed to improve the vaccination coverage in this group.
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.