Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundThe Summit of Independent European Vaccination Experts (SIEVE) recommended in 2007 that efforts be made to improve healthcare workers’ knowledge and beliefs about vaccines, and their attitudes towards them, to increase vaccination coverage. The aim of the study was to compile and analyze the areas of disagreement in the existing evidence about the relationship between healthcare workers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about vaccines and their intentions to vaccinate the populations they serve.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases for studies published in any of seven different languages between February 1998 and June 2009. We included studies conducted in developed countries that used statistical methods to relate or associate the variables included in our research question. Two independent reviewers verified that the studies met the inclusion criteria, assessed the quality of the studies and extracted their relevant characteristics. The data were descriptively analyzed.ResultsOf the 2354 references identified in the initial search, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The diversity in the study designs and in the methods used to measure the variables made it impossible to integrate the results, and each study had to be assessed individually. All the studies found an association in the direction postulated by the SIEVE experts: among healthcare workers, higher awareness, beliefs that are more aligned with scientific evidence and more favorable attitudes toward vaccination were associated with greater intentions to vaccinate. All the studies included were cross-sectional; thus, no causal relationship between the variables was established.ConclusionThe results suggest that interventions aimed at improving healthcare workers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about vaccines should be encouraged, and their impact on vaccination coverage should be assessed.

The sleep phenotype of Borderline Personality Disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The NOS is based on a star system in which each case control study is assessed on three broad domains: selection (maximum of 4 stars); comparability (maximum of 2 stars) and exposure (maximum of 3 stars). We used the adapted scale by Herzog et al (2013) for cross sectional studies, covering the similar domains of selection (maximum of 5 stars); comparability (maximum of 2 stars); and outcome (maximum of 3 stars). The content validity and inter-rater reliability of the NOS have been established (Wells et al, 2000).…”

Insulin resistance and endometrial cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…NOS scores of !7 were considered as high-quality studies and of 5e6 as moderate quality. An adapted form of the cohort NOS was used for assessing risk of bias in cross-sectional studies [23]. All discrepancies were addressed by a re-evaluation of the original article as a group (VP, VAB-Z and AVH).…”

Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of general practitioners/family physicians toward their own vaccination: A systematic review

“…The risk of bias was evaluated independently by 2 authors using an appropriate and previously used tool -the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies (additional file 4). 58 Disagreements were resolved by consensus.…”