ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2026
Effectiveness of the Local Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Yellow Fever Vaccine in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Healthcare Professionals and Vaccinees.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFollowing two fatal adverse reactions after yellow fever (YF) vaccination in the United Kingdom (UK) between 2018 and 2019, both involving unapproved use, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) mandated that the Marketing Authorisation Holder incorporate a checklist into the YF vaccine (STAMARIL) Risk Management Plan. This checklist was implemented as part of the local additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs) in 2021, along with an updated patient information leaflet (PIL), to assist UK healthcare professionals (HCPs) in conducting risk-benefit evaluations during YF vaccination consultations. We evaluated the effectiveness of these interventions among HCPs at authorised YF vaccination centres and vaccinees across the UK.
methodsUsing a cross-sectional online survey among eligible UK HCPs and YF vaccinees in 2023, we assessed five effectiveness indicators: four for HCPs (aRMMs YF pre-vaccination checklist awareness, standardised YF pre-vaccination checklist utilisation, PIL distribution and knowledge and understanding of checklist's key safety messages) and one for vaccinees (PIL receipt). Each indicator was successful if achieved by ≥ 80% of the respondents. The proportion of desirable answers provided for each indicator with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
resultsAmong the 153 HCPs who responded, 73.9% (95% CI: 66.4%-80.2%) were aware of the aRMMs checklist, 89.5% (95% CI: 83.7%-93.5%) utilised any standardised checklist(s), 92.2% (95% CI: 86.8%-95.5%) distributed the PIL to vaccinees and 46.4% (95% CI: 38.7%-54.3%) provided desirable answers to ≥ 80% of the questions on knowledge and understanding of key safety messages. Among 125 vaccinees who responded, 87.2% (95% CI: 80.2%-92.0%) confirmed PIL receipt.
conclusionThree of the five effectiveness indicators were successful. Importantly, no YF vaccination errors were reported in the UK National Travel Health Network and Centre Annual Return reports (2021-2024) following aRMM implementation. Therefore, these findings suggest that the local aRMMs provide an effective framework for the safe administration of YF vaccine.
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.