ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Knowledge, attitude, and perception regarding the respiratory syncytial virus vaccine among healthcare professionals.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Appraisal of the Potential Downstream Benefits of RSV Vaccination in Older Adults.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Review
- Maternal RSV vaccination: clinical efficacy, safety, and global policy considerations: a systematic review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Review
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to adult vaccination among adults and healthcare professionals across Mexico.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a significant respiratory pathogen. Despite vaccine availability, uptake remains low, and healthcare professionals play a key role in promoting immunisation. This study aims to evaluate healthcare providers' knowledge, perceptions and practices regarding the RSV vaccine. Methods: A validated survey was distributed to healthcare professionals. The study questionnaire contained sections to assess sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge of RSV and its vaccines, healthcare professionals' perception towards RSV and its vaccines, and their perception towards the potential barriers against RSV vaccination. The last section assesses physicians' previous practice in dealing with RSV infection. Results: Over half of the participants (56.6%) had no prior awareness of RSV, though many recognised its potential severity, particularly in vulnerable populations like children and older adults (52.6%). Awareness of FDA-approved RSV vaccines was limited, with only 28.1% of respondents familiar with vaccines intended for older adults. Views on vaccination recommendations for older age groups were divided; 23.7% supported vaccination for those 75 and older, while 31.1% advocated for vaccination in those aged 60-74 at higher risk. Perceived barriers to RSV vaccination were prominent. Most respondents (85.1%) cited concerns about vaccine safety as a key obstacle, and 81.1% identified out-of-pocket costs as a significant barrier. Testing for RSV was infrequent (24.6%), mainly due to a lack of effective treatment. Most participants (96.9%) called for greater awareness and education about RSV vaccines, and 91.2% supported recommending the vaccine if it was available and free. Conclusion: This study reveals significant gaps in healthcare professionals' knowledge and practices regarding RSV and its vaccines, with substantial barriers to vaccine adoption. Targeted education, improved diagnostics, and addressing vaccine barriers are essential strategies for improving the healthcare response to RSV.
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.