ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2025
Managing allergy-related COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A multi-methods analysis of practitioner notes and referral outcomes.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines healthcare practitioners' decision-making processes when managing vaccine-hesitant patients concerned about allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods secondary data analysis was conducted combining quantitative referral trends and qualitative thematic analysis of health practitioner recorded notes. Anonymized data from 326 individuals referred to an interim COVID-19 vaccine allergy advice service based in Herefordshire and Worcestershire, UK, were analyzed. Quantitative data included referral patterns and vaccination outcomes, while qualitative data consisted of thematic analysis of free-text health practitioner notes documenting patient concerns and practitioner decision-making. Of the referred cases, 23.3% were advised to proceed with vaccination in primary care without precaution, 29% with additional precautions such as antihistamines and extended observation. Hospital-based vaccination was only recommended for 0.9%, typically for individuals with complex allergy histories. In 22.7%, cases were escalated to a multidisciplinary team that mainly advised vaccination in primary care with precautions or in hospital settings. Notably, no cases resulted in recommendations against vaccination. The qualitative analysis of health practitioner free text notes developed three themes: diverse presentation of allergies, complex allergy histories, and patient anxiety and lack of trust. Themes suggest healthcare practitioners face significant challenges in clinical decision-making with these patients and highlight the complexity of managing vaccine hesitancy. This study underscores the need for enhanced training and standardized documentation processes to support healthcare practitioners in managing allergy-related vaccine hesitancy. Public health messaging should proactively address misconceptions about vaccines as they relate to allergies, to build trust and reduce hesitancy.
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.