ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2026
A National Study of Tetanus Vaccine Knowledge, Receipt and Acceptance Among Emergency Department Patients.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 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.
- A National Study of Tetanus Vaccine Knowledge, Receipt and Acceptance Among Emergency Department Patients.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (Tdap, "tetanus") vaccine is recommended for adults every 10 years. In a national sample of adult emergency department (ED) patients, we sought to determine (1) knowledge and up-to-date status of the tetanus vaccine; (2) reasons for nonreceipt of the vaccine; (3) vaccine acceptability if offered in the ED; and (4) reasons for nonacceptance in the ED if offered.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional survey study among non-critically ill adults at 10 US EDs, asking questions about knowledge, receipt, and acceptability of the tetanus vaccine. Vaccine receipt was determined by self-report. Aggregate responses are reported as descriptive statistics. Logistic regression modeling was performed, and data are presented as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsOf 4326 patients approached, 3285 (75.9%) agreed to participate, and 5 were excluded because of incomplete responses. Among 3280 participants, 13.4% had not heard of the vaccine; and 58.0% were not up-to-date. Factors associated with not being up-to-date included age 34-48 (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81), African American race (aOR 1.46; 95% CI 1.19-1.79), no primary care doctor (aOR 1.29; 95% CI 1.04-1.61) and no insurance (aOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.36-2.56). Among participants not up-to-date, 21.6% would accept it during their ED visit. Primary reasons for nonacceptance were needing more information, concerns about side effects, and preference to get it from their doctor.
conclusionsOver half of adult ED patients are not up-to-date on the tetanus vaccine but only one-fifth would accept it if offered during an ED visit. ED-centered efforts to increase uptake should provide messaging to address vaccine 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.