ArticlePrimary health care research & development2026
Vaccination in infected children: a qualitative study of clinical decision-making.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed at investigating the clinical, individual, and systemic factors influencing paediatricians' and family physicians' clinical decision-making process in the vaccination of children during infection from the physician's perspective.
methodsA qualitative study through semi-structured in-depth interviews was conducted among 10 paediatricians and 10 family physicians working in Ankara, Türkiye. The audio-recorded interviews were translated into written texts, and the obtained data was analysed using the thematic analysis method proposed by Braun and Clarke.
resultsFour main themes were identified in of thematic analysis: (I) Impact of clinical conditions on vaccination decisions, (II) attitudes of families and their communication processes with physicians, (III) impact of practice settings and institutional factors, and (IV) vaccine postponement and compensation approaches. It was observed that the decision-making processes of the paediatricians were mainly based on the clinical evaluation criteria, while family physicians considered the expectations of the families and institutional conditions. Also, the importance of establishing effective communication with vaccine-hesitant families has been emphasized by both groups of physicians.
conclusionIn the immunization of infected children, decision-making is shaped in addition to medical facts in relation to the parental attitude, organizational factors within health institutions, and personal experiences of medical staff. Decisions of paediatricians are largely grounded in medical facts, whereas family practitioners assess that social and organizational factors are of higher importance. Improved adherence to medical guidelines and communication competencies of medical professionals can contribute towards medical practice consistency.
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.