ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026
Specialist physician perspectives on clinical decision support to address secondary vaccine hesitancy.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Turning vaccine allergy CDSS into a global trust pipeline: Equity, auditability, and workflow safety.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 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
Background: Vaccines are an evidence-based intervention that mitigates the impact of infections, yet many Americans indicate hesitancy toward receiving vaccines. One of the most common reasons for this is the potential for experiencing adverse reactions when receiving vaccines. The current literature shows that clinical decision support (CDS) tools have been utilized to improve vaccine coverage. Objective: Our aim was to assess specialist physician experiences, practices, and levels of comfort with evaluating adverse and allergic reactions to vaccines, as well as with addressing secondary vaccine hesitancy, using CDS tools. Methods: Researchers conducted 10 semistructured interviews with physicians in Mass General Brigham's Infectious Diseases and Allergy/Immunology units. The interview guide consisted of 11 questions divided into 4 sections: vaccine conversations, vaccine allergies/reactions, CDS, and structural facilitators/barriers. The interview responses were evaluated by using rapid thematic analysis. Results: Specialist physicians were generally comfortable talking to patients about vaccine hesitancy but were also open to CDS tools that effectively and efficiently contribute to improved conversations around secondary vaccine hesitancy to increase vaccine uptake. Desired CDS tool features include sharing educational visuals and videos with patients. The risks involve operational delays and lack of real-time data and accountability structures. Clinic modifications such as longer appointment times or group appointments were considered as other ways to help address vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion: Specialist physicians expressed interest in using CDS tools to improve vaccine-related conversations with their patients. Future CDS tools must account for timely vaccine information and workflow efficiency issues. Future research should include generalist physicians, other health care team members, and patients.
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.