呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)预防:荷兰准父母的看法和意愿

Lisette M Harteveld, Lisanne M van Leeuwen, Sjoerd M Euser, Lucy Smit, Karlijn C Vollebregt, Debby Bogaert, Marlies A van Houten
{"title":"呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)预防:荷兰准父母的看法和意愿","authors":"Lisette M Harteveld, Lisanne M van Leeuwen, Sjoerd M Euser, Lucy Smit, Karlijn C Vollebregt, Debby Bogaert, Marlies A van Houten","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.22.24309339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To investigate the perception and willingness of pregnant women and their partners to accept maternal vaccination or neonatal immunization against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Design: A cross-sectional survey study Setting: Pregnant women and their partners were recruited through healthcare professionals (midwives, gynaecologists, and Youth Health care), social media platforms (Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook via institutions like the Spaarne Hospital), and the 9-Months Fair in the Netherlands. Main outcome measures: Willingness and motivation in decision-making for both maternal RSV vaccination or neonatal RSV immunization among pregnant women and their partners, including strategy preferences, and informational needs. Results: In total 1001 pregnant women (mean age: 31.1 years) and their partners (mean age: 33.2 years) completed the survey. On average, they were 24 weeks pregnant at the time, and 54.6% had no other children yet. The majority was Dutch-born (95.2% of women); with 68.3% of women having completed higher education and with overall strong pro-vaccination attitudes (93.9% of partners intended to vaccinate their expected newborn). The overall acceptability to vaccination and immunization was high, with 87% of respondents indicating they would (likely) accept both strategies. A positive attitude towards both methods was associated with previous experience with severity of RSV, intention to vaccinate the newborn and parental vaccination status during childhood and current pregnancy. When the choice was given, the majority of participants, in particular those with children and the intention to breastfeed, favoured maternal vaccination over passive immunization of infants (75.3% of the pregnant and 71.6% of the partners). A majority of the respondents cited optimal protection for the child and knowledge of RSV as important factors for accepting RSV prophylaxis. Conclusions: While most participants would accept both strategies for RSV protection of their infant, a majority, especially those with other children, favored maternal vaccination, due to concerns about infant safety and awareness of RSV severity.","PeriodicalId":501549,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Pediatrics","volume":"352 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prevention: perception and willingness of expectant parents in the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Lisette M Harteveld, Lisanne M van Leeuwen, Sjoerd M Euser, Lucy Smit, Karlijn C Vollebregt, Debby Bogaert, Marlies A van Houten\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.06.22.24309339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: To investigate the perception and willingness of pregnant women and their partners to accept maternal vaccination or neonatal immunization against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Design: A cross-sectional survey study Setting: Pregnant women and their partners were recruited through healthcare professionals (midwives, gynaecologists, and Youth Health care), social media platforms (Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook via institutions like the Spaarne Hospital), and the 9-Months Fair in the Netherlands. Main outcome measures: Willingness and motivation in decision-making for both maternal RSV vaccination or neonatal RSV immunization among pregnant women and their partners, including strategy preferences, and informational needs. Results: In total 1001 pregnant women (mean age: 31.1 years) and their partners (mean age: 33.2 years) completed the survey. On average, they were 24 weeks pregnant at the time, and 54.6% had no other children yet. The majority was Dutch-born (95.2% of women); with 68.3% of women having completed higher education and with overall strong pro-vaccination attitudes (93.9% of partners intended to vaccinate their expected newborn). The overall acceptability to vaccination and immunization was high, with 87% of respondents indicating they would (likely) accept both strategies. A positive attitude towards both methods was associated with previous experience with severity of RSV, intention to vaccinate the newborn and parental vaccination status during childhood and current pregnancy. When the choice was given, the majority of participants, in particular those with children and the intention to breastfeed, favoured maternal vaccination over passive immunization of infants (75.3% of the pregnant and 71.6% of the partners). A majority of the respondents cited optimal protection for the child and knowledge of RSV as important factors for accepting RSV prophylaxis. Conclusions: While most participants would accept both strategies for RSV protection of their infant, a majority, especially those with other children, favored maternal vaccination, due to concerns about infant safety and awareness of RSV severity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\"352 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.22.24309339\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.22.24309339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的调查孕妇及其伴侣对接受呼吸道合胞病毒 (RSV) 孕妇疫苗接种或新生儿免疫接种的看法和意愿。设计:横断面调查研究横断面调查通过医疗保健专业人员(助产士、妇科医生和青年医疗保健人员)、社交媒体平台(Instagram、LinkedIn、Facebook,通过 Spaarne 医院等机构)和荷兰 9 个月集市招募孕妇及其伴侣。主要结果指标:孕妇及其伴侣对孕产妇 RSV 疫苗接种或新生儿 RSV 免疫接种的决策意愿和动机,包括策略偏好和信息需求。结果:共有 1001 名孕妇(平均年龄:31.1 岁)及其伴侣(平均年龄:33.2 岁)完成了调查。她们平均怀孕 24 周,54.6% 尚未有其他子女。大多数人在荷兰出生(95.2% 的妇女);68.3% 的妇女受过高等教育,总体上对疫苗接种持强烈支持态度(93.9% 的伴侣打算为预产期内的新生儿接种疫苗)。接种疫苗和免疫接种的总体接受度很高,87% 的受访者表示她们(可能)会接受这两种策略。对这两种方法的积极态度与以往对 RSV 严重性的经验、为新生儿接种疫苗的意愿以及父母在儿童时期和当前怀孕期间的疫苗接种情况有关。在做出选择时,大多数参与者,尤其是有孩子并打算母乳喂养的参与者,都倾向于母亲接种疫苗,而不是婴儿被动免疫(75.3% 的孕妇和 71.6% 的伴侣)。大多数受访者认为,对孩子的最佳保护和对 RSV 的了解是接受 RSV 预防的重要因素。结论:虽然大多数受访者会接受两种保护婴儿免受 RSV 感染的策略,但大多数人,尤其是有其他孩子的受访者,更倾向于母亲接种疫苗,因为他们担心婴儿的安全并了解 RSV 的严重性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prevention: perception and willingness of expectant parents in the Netherlands
Objectives: To investigate the perception and willingness of pregnant women and their partners to accept maternal vaccination or neonatal immunization against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Design: A cross-sectional survey study Setting: Pregnant women and their partners were recruited through healthcare professionals (midwives, gynaecologists, and Youth Health care), social media platforms (Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook via institutions like the Spaarne Hospital), and the 9-Months Fair in the Netherlands. Main outcome measures: Willingness and motivation in decision-making for both maternal RSV vaccination or neonatal RSV immunization among pregnant women and their partners, including strategy preferences, and informational needs. Results: In total 1001 pregnant women (mean age: 31.1 years) and their partners (mean age: 33.2 years) completed the survey. On average, they were 24 weeks pregnant at the time, and 54.6% had no other children yet. The majority was Dutch-born (95.2% of women); with 68.3% of women having completed higher education and with overall strong pro-vaccination attitudes (93.9% of partners intended to vaccinate their expected newborn). The overall acceptability to vaccination and immunization was high, with 87% of respondents indicating they would (likely) accept both strategies. A positive attitude towards both methods was associated with previous experience with severity of RSV, intention to vaccinate the newborn and parental vaccination status during childhood and current pregnancy. When the choice was given, the majority of participants, in particular those with children and the intention to breastfeed, favoured maternal vaccination over passive immunization of infants (75.3% of the pregnant and 71.6% of the partners). A majority of the respondents cited optimal protection for the child and knowledge of RSV as important factors for accepting RSV prophylaxis. Conclusions: While most participants would accept both strategies for RSV protection of their infant, a majority, especially those with other children, favored maternal vaccination, due to concerns about infant safety and awareness of RSV severity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nirsevimab in Reducing Pediatric RSV Hospitalizations in Spain The Impact of Chlorinated Drinking Water Exposure on Gut Microbiota Development in Infants: a Randomised Controlled Trial. Development of a Novel Dynamic Leak Model to Simulate Leak for Performance Testing of Manual Neonatal Resuscitation Devices. Does Leak Matter? A Bench Study How young people experienced Long COVID services: a qualitative analysis. Knowledge of Childhood and Adolescent Cancer Among Primary Caregivers: An Observational and Prospective Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1