ArticleAmerican journal of nephrology2026
Nephrology Provider Perceptions about Recommending Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccines: A Nationwide Survey.
Article in American journal of nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVaccination rates for influenza and COVID-19 remain low among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Nephrology care offers an opportunity to boost vaccination rates. Understanding provider perceptions can be key to developing effective intervention programs.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide survey among nephrology care providers. In a questionnaire, we assessed the providers' agreement with potential barriers to recommending influenza and COVID-19 vaccines and perceptions of selected vaccination programs on their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.
resultsBetween February and June 2023, 312 providers responded to the survey. Most providers agreed that there is sufficient evidence for influenza vaccines (270/311, 86.8%) and that vaccines reduce the risk of serious complications of influenza (277/310, 89.4%). However, 40/312 (12.8%) felt that recommending influenza vaccines is less important than other issues they must address. By profession, more physicians agreed with the evidence (112/123 or 91.1% vs. 39/49 or 79.5% for NPs and 83/101 or 82.2% for RNs, p = 0.007) than nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses (RNs). The most perceived barrier was lack of self-efficacy: 95/311 (30.5%) felt that many patients will not get vaccinated even if they recommend it. Similar responses were seen for COVID-19 vaccines. Regarding vaccination programs, 209/235 (88.9%), 197/224 (87.9%), and 183/222 (82.4%) providers considered provider reminders acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. 209/239 (87.4%), 198/226 (87.6%), and 187/224 (83.5%) did so for standing orders. Onsite/walk-in vaccinations were viewed as acceptable by 192/242 (79.3%) but less feasible (137/222 or 61.7%). Fewer than 33% of providers perceived patient incentives as acceptable, appropriate, or feasible.
conclusionsMost nephrology care providers believe that influenza and COVID-19 vaccinations offer evidence-based benefits, with slightly higher belief among physicians compared to NPs or RNs. However, important barriers to vaccination remain. Standing orders, provider reminders, and onsite/walk-in vaccination are favorably perceived by providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.