ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Vaccine hesitancy and attitudes toward newborn heel-prick screening among religious officials: A mixed-methods study, Erzurum, Türkiye.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccine hesitancy has risen globally and in Türkiye. Religious officials often act as community opinion leaders; their views may shape acceptance of vaccination and newborn bloodspot screening (NBS). We conducted a cross-sectional study among Muslim religious officials in Erzurum, Türkiye (n = 200). A 47-item questionnaire captured sociodemographics, health-service use/satisfaction, attitudes to childhood/adult vaccines and newborn bloodspot screening, and the 21-item Turkish Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (higher scores = higher hesitancy). Open-ended item elicited qualitative comments. Quantitative comparisons used t-tests/one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Qualitative data underwent inductive thematic analysis (Braun-Clarke); two independent coders achieved Cohen's κ = 0.80. Mean vaccine hesitancy score was 62.9 ± 11.4. Scores did not differ by sociodemographics (p > .05). Lower satisfaction with health services was associated with higher hesitancy (overall p = .004). Hesitancy varied by attitudes toward adult vaccination (p = .003), childhood vaccination (p = .002), and NBS support (p = .004) - with lower scores among supporters. Only 19% were aware of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) fatwa on vaccination; awareness was not associated with hesitancy (p > .05). Thematic analysis (n = 40 textual responses) yielded five themes: safety/adverse-effect concerns (27.5%); information & service-process experience (22.5%); perceived benefit/effectiveness (bipolar) (20.0%); privacy/biomaterial (NBS) (17.5%); and fertility/genetic-harm beliefs (12.5%).Among religious officials, vaccine hesitancy appeared to cluster around safety and institutional trust, reinforced by privacy/biomaterial, fertility/genetic, and effectiveness narratives. Interventions should prioritize content transparency (including halal and safety information), process transparency for NBS (storage/secondary use/disposal policies), co-delivery of messages by physicians and religious officials, proactive risk communication, and brief, targeted training modules.
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.