ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Experience of maternal immunization among women living with HIV in Belgium: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 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.
- Improved pertussis vaccine uptake following in-hospital administration among pregnant women living with HIV.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Observational
- More relevant than ever: Celebrating a decade ofPreventive medicine reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Maternal immunization during pregnancy has benefits for both women living with HIV (WLWH) and their HIV-exposed uninfected newborns. Vaccine hesitancy may hamper vaccine acceptability during pregnancy. We aimed to assess the experience of WLWH with a history of pregnancy with maternal immunization. Methods: In-person quantitative survey with embedded collection of qualitative data was performed among WLWH with a history of pregnancy Results: Between October and November 2021, a total of 20 WLWH followed at Saint-Pierre University Hospital Center HIV reference center in Brussels (Belgium) were included. The majority originated from Sub-Saharan Africa and had education level below or equivalent to secondary school. Most of the participants agreed that vaccination during pregnancy is necessary, highlighting the benefits for the health of the mother and the newborn. Reluctant participants expressed concerns about safety or lack of information. Most of the participants mentioned health-care providers (HCP) (mainly HIV physician) as the main person of trust for vaccine information in general. Social media were also mentioned as an important source of information on vaccination. Conclusions: The benefits for the mother and the newborn were associated with favorable opinion on maternal immunization while doubt about safety or lack of information appeared to be hurdles to acceptance. Proactive communication on the benefit of maternal immunization for both the mother and newborn by HIV physician and HCP involved in prenatal care is needed to increase acceptability of maternal immunization among WLWH.
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.