ArticleArchives of disease in childhood1993
Primary immunisations in Liverpool. I: Who withholds consent?
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Linking cohort data and Welsh routine health records to investigate children at risk of delayed primary vaccination.Vaccine · 2022Article
- The impact of the media on the decision of parents in South Wales to accept measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) immunization.Epidemiology and infection · 2015Article
- Primary immunisations in Liverpool.Archives of disease in childhood · 1994Article
- Primary immunisations in Liverpool.Archives of disease in childhood · 1994Article
- Primary immunisations in Liverpool. II: Is there a gap between consent and completion?Archives of disease in childhood · 1993Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The association between parents in Liverpool consenting to their children being invited for primary immunisations and five sociodemographic factors, namely sex, position of child in the family, family type, migration into Liverpool since birth, and local deprivation was examined. Rates of consent to invitation were over 97% for each antigen except pertussis, which had a consent rate of 83%. Consent to invitation for pertussis vaccine was least likely to have been given for boys, children with older siblings, those recorded as living with a single parent, and those in the most deprived areas. Local deprivation also had an effect on consent to the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Migration into Liverpool had a significant effect on consent to invitation for all antigens except pertussis. The child's sex, family type, and local deprivation had no effect on consent to diphtheria, tetanus, and polio immunisations. Maximising pertussis vaccine uptake will require more attention to be paid to those parents who have been identified as being less likely to give consent. It is particularly important that consistent and clear advice about immunisations is made available to parents with two or more children, lone parents, and those living in materially deprived areas. Our findings challenge some of the assumptions underlying the principles of 'first parent visiting', at least so far as pertussis is concerned.
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.