Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39900425›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2025

Acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine alongside existing malaria interventions in the trial context.

Halimatou Diawara, Jane Grant, Alassane Dicko, Seydou Traore, Djibrilla Issiaka, Fatoumata Koita, Mehreen Datoo, Mala Sylla, Abdrahmane Boncane Dicko, Issaka Sagara and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

14 authors.

Halimatou DiawaraMalaria Research and Training Centre, University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
Jane GrantLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK jane.grant2@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1607-4042
Alassane DickoMalaria Research and Training Centre, University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
Seydou TraoreMalaria Research and Training Centre, University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3568-2788
Djibrilla IssiakaMalaria Research and Training Centre, University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
Fatoumata KoitaMalaria Research and Training Centre, University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
Mehreen DatooCentre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Mala SyllaMinistry of Health and Public Hygiene, Bamako, Mali.
Abdrahmane Boncane DickoMinistry of Health and Public Hygiene, Bamako, Mali.
Issaka SagaraMalaria Research and Training Centre, University of Sciences Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali.
Daniel ChandramohanLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Adrian Vs HillCentre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Brian GreenwoodLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jayne WebsterLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine has been shown to provide high protective efficacy against malaria in a phase III trial, and has been recommended for use by WHO. The vaccine will soon be deployed at scale in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed to understand the caregiver and community acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine alongside existing malaria prevention interventions, according to the communities of participants in the seasonal R21/Matrix-M phase III trial in Mali.

methodsQualitative data were collected to assess the acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine alongside the three R21/Matrix-M or control vaccine priming injections given in the first year of the trial. A total of 33 in-depth interviews (IDIs), 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 45 exit interviews at the trial clinics were conducted with caregivers of trial participants, 18 IDIs and 8 FGDs were conducted with community members, 13 IDIs with community health workers and 8 IDIs with trial field staff. Data were coded using the constructs from Sekhon's theoretical framework on acceptability.

resultsAcceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine was driven mainly by the high burden of malaria in the highly seasonal study area and consequent demand for a malaria vaccine, a perceived high efficacy of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine, and a high level of trust and confidence in the trial and trial team. These perceptions of the acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine led to a reduced perceived importance of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) among some caregivers, while others viewed R21/Matrix-M, SMC and insecticide-treated nets as complementary.

conclusionsThe R21/Matrix-M vaccine was acceptable to caregivers and communities of participants in the R21/Matrix-M phase III trial in Mali. Implementation research is needed to evaluate and ensure co-coverage of complementary malaria control interventions, including SMC in seasonal settings, in the face of the scale-up of R21/Matrix-M and other malaria vaccines.

Indexed as

MalariaMalaria VaccinesPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultCaregiversFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMaliMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung AdultMalaria VaccinesChemoprophylaxisGlobal HealthMalariaQualitative studyVaccines

Identifiers

PMID39900425
PMCPMC11795384

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.