Back

Maternal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine perceptions amongst pregnant women and mothers of infants and toddlers in England: a qualitative study

Bell, S. L.; Chantler, T.; Passanante, A.; Pryce, J.; Bisset, K.; Letley, L.; Campbell, H.; Paterson, P.

2026-03-30 public and global health
10.64898/2026.03.27.26349494 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aim: To explore RSV knowledge and awareness, RSV vaccination perceptions and acceptability, and preferences for maternal vaccine delivery and communication amongst pregnant women and mothers of infants and toddlers in England. Methods: Between July and November 2024, semi-structured qualitative interviews were performed with 30 mothers (youngest child under 2 years), two of whom were pregnant with a subsequent child. The study was conducted as a follow-on to a UK Health Security Agency survey of attitudes towards RSV vaccination amongst pregnant and post-partum women in England. Findings: Although most mothers had heard of RSV, mothers with experience in health roles were more likely to understand the potential severity of RSV in infants. Likelihood of maternal RSV acceptance was reported as high, with most mothers considering RSV vaccination as beneficial in protecting infants. Most mothers preferred a hybrid approach to vaccine communication, with information available online (e.g. through the NHS website), via written sources (e.g. NHS produced leaflet), and through talking with midwives. For convenience, most mothers preferred the option of fitting vaccinations within the antenatal midwifery appointment schedule rather than going to general practice for a separate appointment. Conclusion: To support maternal RSV vaccination decision-making and access, women need vaccine information early in pregnancy; information provision through a range of different sources (i.e. online, paper, in-person); and vaccination delivery in a convenient location (i.e. as part of antenatal appointments).

Published in Vaccine (predicted rank #3) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.