17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza. However, maternal influenza vaccination uptake in most World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries remains low, despite the presence of widespread national recommendations. An influenza vaccination reduces influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, as well as providing newborns with protection in their first months. Potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy need to be identified to develop strategies that can increase vaccine acceptance and uptake among pregnant women. The primary objective of the systematic review is to identify the individual determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe, and how to overcome the hesitancy.

          Methods

          Databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2009 and 2019 inclusive. Databases included PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals, Taylor and Francis and Springer nature. These covered themes including psychology, medicine, and public health. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, 11 studies were eligible and analyzed for significant determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe.

          Results

          The most commonly reported factors were psychological aspects, for example concerns about safety and risks to mother and child, or general low risk perception of becoming ill from influenza. Doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine and a lack of knowledge about this topic were further factors. There was also influence of contextual factors, such as healthcare workers not providing adequate knowledge about the influenza vaccine or the pregnant lady stating their antivaccine sentiment.

          Conclusion

          Health promotion that specifically increases knowledge among pregnant women about influenza and vaccination is important, supporting a valid risk judgment by the pregnant lady. The development of new information strategies for dialogue between healthcare providers and pregnant women should form part of this strategy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

          The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

            This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study

              Estimates of influenza-associated mortality are important for national and international decision making on public health priorities. Previous estimates of 250 000-500 000 annual influenza deaths are outdated. We updated the estimated number of global annual influenza-associated respiratory deaths using country-specific influenza-associated excess respiratory mortality estimates from 1999-2015.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gbadebo.adeyanju@uni-erfurt.de
                Journal
                Eur J Med Res
                Eur J Med Res
                European Journal of Medical Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                0949-2321
                2047-783X
                28 September 2021
                28 September 2021
                2021
                : 26
                : 116
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.32801.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2359 2414, Centre for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioural Science (CEREB), , University of Erfurt, ; Erfurt, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.32801.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2359 2414, Media and Communication Science, , University of Erfurt, ; Erfurt, Germany
                [3 ]GRID grid.32801.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2359 2414, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, , University of Erfurt, ; Erfurt, Germany
                [4 ]GRID grid.5491.9, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9297, Clinical Informatics Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Southampton, ; Southampton, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-0183
                Article
                584
                10.1186/s40001-021-00584-w
                8477621
                34583779
                20bf894a-e8ed-4324-bed1-05263a3438c5
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 31 March 2021
                : 12 September 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Universität Erfurt (3150)
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Medicine
                influenza,vaccination,infectious diseases,pregnant women,europe,vaccine hesitancy,vaccine refusal,vaccine delay,review,maternal

                Comments

                Comment on this article