The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Architecture of Provider-Parent Vaccine Discussions at Health Supervision Visits
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize provider-parent vaccine communication and determine the influence of specific provider communication practices on parent resistance to vaccine recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study in which we videotaped provider-parent vaccine discussions during health supervision visits. Parents of children aged 1 to 19 months old were screened by using the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey. We oversampled vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs), defined as a score ≥50. We developed a coding scheme of 15 communication practices and applied it to all visits. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore the association between provider communication practices and parent resistance to vaccines, controlling for parental hesitancy status and demographic and visit characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed 111 vaccine discussions involving 16 providers from 9 practices; 50% included VHPs. Most providers (74%) initiated vaccine recommendations with presumptive (eg, “Well, we have to do some shots”) rather than participatory (eg, “What do you want to do about shots?”) formats. Among parents who voiced resistance to provider initiation (41%), significantly more were VHPs than non-VHPs. Parents had significantly higher odds of resisting vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (adjusted odds ratio: 17.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2–253.5). When parents resisted, 50% of providers pursued their original recommendations (eg, “He really needs these shots”), and 47% of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted recommendations when they did. CONCLUSIONS: How providers initiate and pursue vaccine recommendations is associated with parental vaccine acceptance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“VSGs can also provide psychological safety and lessen fear, anxiety, and embarrassment in new learners who may worry about making mistakes in front of fellow students and instructors [16–18].”
From Development and evaluation of virtual simulation games to increase the confidence and self-efficacy of healthcare learners in vaccine communication, advocacy, and promotion (2024) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Ultimately, HCPs are most likely to improve their confidence in communication skills through repeated practice with patients, and simulations are an effective way to emulate real patient scenarios.”
From Development and evaluation of virtual simulation games to increase the confidence and self-efficacy of healthcare learners in vaccine communication, advocacy, and promotion (2024) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
Regression Modeling Strategies
Harrell, F. E. (2001) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 · Cited by 9,270
Harrell (2015) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7 · Cited by 6,878
Sequence Organization in Interaction
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791208 · Cited by 4,955
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,199
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (2003) · Cited by 2,826
Rao, S. J. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2003.s263 · Cited by 1,967
Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases
Nider, H. (1989) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.1989.01670190156031 · Cited by 1,911
Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) · Cited by 1,673
Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge
Heritage, J. C. (2012) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 · Cited by 1,666
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Schegloff, 2005, A Primer of Conversation Analysis: Sequence Organization
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618760521 · Cited by 1,233
Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications
Dubé, È., Vivion, M., & MacDonald, N. E. (2014) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.964212 · Cited by 1,042
Vaccine hesitancy and healthcare providers
Paterson, P., Meurice, F., Stanberry, L. R., Glismann, S., Rosenthal, S. L., & Larson, H. J. (2016) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.042 · Cited by 897
Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews
Dubé, È., Gagnon, D., & MacDonald, N. E. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041 · Cited by 649
Salmon, D. A., Dudley, M. Z., Glanz, J. M., & Omer, S. B. (2015) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.06.009 · Cited by 493
Metadata
- Authors
- Opel, D. J., Heritage, J., Taylor, J. A., Mangione-Smith, R., Salas, H. S., DeVere, V., Zhou, C., & Robinson, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Seattle Children's Research Institute (US)
- Portland State University (US)
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2013-12-01
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1037-1046
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- PMC
- PMC3838535
- OpenAlex
- W2116049831
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 36.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1K23HD06947, K23HD069467)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Keywords
- vaccine hesitancy, vaccine communication, childhood immunization, vaccine recommendations, participatory communication, vaccine acceptance, pediatric primary care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Parents, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Professional-Family Relations, Vaccination, Video Recording, Washington, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Qualitative Research, Directive Counseling
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
