↓ Skip to main content

Vaccination hesitancy in the antenatal period: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vaccination hesitancy in the antenatal period: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5389-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Corben, Julie Leask

Abstract

Recent reports of childhood vaccination coverage in Australia have shown steadily improving vaccination coverage and narrowing differences between highest and lowest coverage regions, yet the NSW North Coast consistently has the lowest coverage rates nationally. Better understanding of parents' vaccination attitudes and actions within this region may guide strategies to improve uptake. The antenatal period is when many parents explore and consolidate vaccination attitudes and so is pivotal for study. Women attending public antenatal clinics at six NSW North Coast hospitals completed a 10-min cross-sectional survey capturing stage of decision-making and decisional-conflict as well as vaccination hesitancy, attitudes, intentions and actions. Unscored responses were analysed for individual items. Decisional conflict subscales were scored using published algorithms. For consented children, immunisation status was assessed at 8 months using the Australian Immunisation Register. For Likert scale items, odds ratios and Fisher's exact, chi-squared and Chasson's tests assessed differences between subgroups. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests assessed differences between subgroups for items on scales of 0-to-10 and decisional conflict sub-scale scores. First-time mothers were 3 times more likely than others (OR = 3.40, 95% CI 1.34-8.60) to identify as unsure, somewhat or very hesitant. Most respondents (92.2%) wanted their new baby to receive all recommended vaccinations. Many had high or moderate levels of concern about vaccine side effects (25.4%), safety (23.6%) and effectiveness (23.1%). Increased hesitancy was associated with decreased confidence in the schedule (p < 0.001), decreased trust in child's doctor (p < 0.0001), decreased perceived protection from disease (p < 0.05) and increased decisional conflict on all measured subscales (p < 0.0001). First-time mothers had higher decisional conflict on values clarity, support and uncertainty sub-scales. By 8 months of age, 83.2% of infants were fully vaccinated. Those with none or a few minor concerns were over 8 times more likely than others to vaccinate on schedule (OR = 8.7, 1.3-56.7). Importantly this study provides further strong justification to talk with women about vaccination during pregnancy and particularly to ensure that first-time mothers are offered assistance in making these important decisions, where indicated. Further research should focus on optimising the timing, content and delivery style of perinatal interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 20%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 33 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,125,919
of 15,917,403 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,370
of 10,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,708
of 279,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,917,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them