ArticleVaccines2026
Preparing for Future Group B
Article in Vaccines, 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
Abstract
backgroundVaccines for Group B
methodsThis qualitative study recruited participants nationally through social media and antenatal clinics of a maternity hospital in South Australia between December 2024 and August 2025. Eligible participants were pregnant women aged ≥18 years residing in Australia. Online interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) were held to explore pregnant women's knowledge and perceptions of GBS, experiences with current screening and management strategies, and views on future maternal GBS vaccination. Twenty-five women participated in FGDs and six in individual interviews; FGD group sizes ranged from two to five participants. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis.
resultsA total of 31 pregnant women participated, aged 19-43 years. Most participants (51.6%) were from South Australia, 87.1% had tertiary education, and 51.6% were employed in the health sector. Five themes were identified: (1) infant wellbeing is the dominant driver of vaccine acceptance, (2) maternal vaccination is preferred over current antibiotic prophylaxis, (3) perceived uncertainty about vaccine safety and knowledge gaps fuel caution, (4) accessible and flexible vaccination delivery models are desired, and (5) multimodal, woman-centred communication delivered through trusted healthcare providers is required.
conclusionsFindings highlight the importance of addressing knowledge and safety concerns and incorporating accessible, flexible and woman-centred approaches into the planning of future maternal GBS vaccination programmes.
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.