ArticlePloS one2025
Does integration matter? an international cross-sectional study on the relationship between perceived public health and primary care integration and COVID-19 vaccination rates.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Academic partnerships for family medicine and primary health care education: a global narrative review 7 years after Astana.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Improving vaccination coverage among 24-month-old children in the ASL Napoli 3 Sud: a M.A.S.T.E.R. approach to transformation, evaluation and strategic redesign.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmunisation against COVID-19 is crucial for controlling the pandemic, yet global challenges persist in vaccine coverage and equitable distribution. A well-integrated primary health care approach can enhance vaccination programmes.
aimTo explore the relationship between perceived PC (primary care)-PH (public health) integration, as well as other vaccination program implementation factors, and national COVID-19 vaccination coverage. DESIGN AND
settingA convenience sample of self-identified primary care professionals completed an online survey on COVID-19 vaccination programme implementation and their perceptions of PC-PH integration.
methodsCountries with ≥5 responses were included in the data analysis. COVID-19 vaccination implementation approach and perceived PC-PH integration against COVID-19 vaccination coverage was investigated using bivariate and subgroup analyses, Spearman correlation, and linear regression.
resultsA total of 394 responses from 32 countries were analysed. Participants included primary care providers, academics, and researchers. The median national COVID-19 vaccination coverage was 28.41% at time of study. Perceived barriers included patient hesitancy and vaccine supply shortages, while facilitators included vaccine product choices, equity, and community engagement. The study revealed a positive relationship between perceptions of PC-PH integration and national vaccination coverage in upper-middle and lower-middle income countries.
conclusionPerceived PC-PH integration increased with decreasing economic quartiles and this perception was linked to actual national vaccination coverage. Integration may be especially important for countries with lesser vaccine supply. High-income countries may benefit from increased collaboration between PC and PH to enhance vaccination efficiency. The findings contribute to understanding the role of PC-PH integration in vaccination programmes in different settings.
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.