ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Behavioural and service-context correlates of tetanus vaccination intention after trauma exposure in China: a cross-sectional BeSD study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Trauma-care encounters provide an opportunity to assess tetanus risk and deliver post-exposure prophylaxis. We primarily examined behavioural, social, and service-context factors associated with tetanus vaccination intention using the Behavioural and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) framework. We additionally described documented vaccination, guideline-based indications, and exploratory algorithm-classified guideline concordance among trauma-exposed adults. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at 12 healthcare sites in Quzhou, China, from March to May 2026. Vaccination intention was assessed via a questionnaire, whereas documented active vaccination was verified from clinical and immunisation records. Guideline-based indications were determined from wound characteristics and previous immunisation history using a prespecified algorithm, and guideline concordance reflected whether documented management matched the algorithm-based recommendation. Logistic regression and structural equation modelling were used to assess factors associated with vaccination intention. Results: Among 657 participants, 341 (51.9%) reported a willingness to receive tetanus vaccination. Animal-related injury, thinking and feeling, social processes, and practical accessibility were positively associated with willingness, with practical accessibility showing the strongest association with latent intention. Overall, 642 participants had a guideline-based indication for active vaccination, while 126/657 (19.2%) had documented active vaccination within 7 days. Among 333 participants who were both willing and guideline-indicated, 100/333 (30.0%) had documented vaccination. Separately, 119/657 (18.1%) met the exploratory algorithm-classified guideline-concordance definition. Conclusion: BeSD-related perceptions, particularly perceived practical accessibility, were associated with tetanus vaccination intention during the trauma-care episode. However, documented vaccination and guideline-concordant prophylaxis could not be fully interpreted because reliable assessment depended on complete immunisation histories and wound documentation. Because the temporal sequence between questionnaire completion and clinical care could not be verified for all participants, the findings should be interpreted as cross-sectional associations. Algorithm-classified guideline concordance should be viewed as an exploratory, data-dependent classification rather than a direct measure of clinician adherence to prophylaxis guidelines. These findings highlight the potential value of improving immunisation record verification and facilitating accessible vaccination services, while further studies with more complete clinical documentation are needed to evaluate guideline-concordant prophylaxis.
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.