Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 28;70(692):e179–e185. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X708113

Table 2.

Multivariate ordinal regression analysis of factors predicting how often GPs discussed antenatal vaccination with pregnant women

Variable Number of GPs who reported discussing antenatal vaccination with pregnant women ‘every time’ or ‘often’ Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)
Length of time working as a GP since qualification
  >11 years 360/922 (39%) 1.84 (1.26 to 2.68)a
  2–10 years 154/445 (35%) 1.61 (1.09 to 2.40)b
  <2 years 26/111 (23%) 1.00 (reference)

Presence of extra qualification or special interest in paediatrics, obstetrics, infectious disease, or related subject
  Yes 183/393 (47%) 1.21 (0.97 to 1.51)
  No 359/1085 (33%) 1.00 (reference)

Review pregnant women routinely as part of their antenatal care
  Yes 266/523 (51%) 2.00 (1.63 to 2.47)c
  No 278/958 (29%) 1.00 (reference)

Extent to which they believed discussing vaccination was a responsibility of GPs
  Strongly agree 129/181 (71%) 11.58 (7.60 to 17.64)c
  Agree 338/716 (47%) 4.15 (3.01 to 5.65)c
  Neutral 85/441 (19%) 1.66 (1.21 to 2.29)a
  Disagree 29/213 (14%) 1.00 (reference)
Level of confidence in their knowledge of the risks/benefits of antenatal pertussis vaccination
  Strongly agree/agree 452/1012 (45%) 3.52 (2.45 to 5.07)c
  Neutral 105/373 (28%) 2.25 (1.53 to 3.30)c
  Disagree/strongly disagree 20/181 (11%) 1.00 (reference)

Level of confidence in their knowledge of the risks/benefits of antenatal influenza vaccination
  Strongly agree/agree 516/1242 (42%) 2.34 (1.40 to 3.91)a
  Neutral 46/227 (20%) 1.34 (0.77 to 2.31)
  Disagree/strongly disagree 10/84 (12%) 1.00 (reference)
a

P<0.01.

b

P<0.05.

c

P<0.001. CI = confidence interval.