ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Ethical analysis of childhood vaccination information processes among Turkish parents in the United States.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Highly educated, established immigrant populations remain understudied in vaccine-hesitancy research, which has focused primarily on refugee and low-literacy samples. This study examines how foreign-born Muslim Turkish parents in the US experience informed consent for childhood vaccination within a legal context that treats vaccination as a mandatory condition of school enrollment. Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was employed using semi-structured in-depth interviews with 13 foreign-born Turkish Muslim parents recruited via snowball sampling across five U. S. states. Data were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis within Braun and Clarke's six-step framework. After two coders performed manual coding independently, Google NotebookLM was integrated for preliminary code extraction. A third author participated in the comparative evaluation and code book consensus, and the findings were organized into themes. Results: Participant-reported experiences yielded four main themes: (1) Technical language and understandability barriers in the information process; (2) Ethical competence and barrier management in clinical communication; (3) Vaccine mandates in education and enrollment processes and their impact on the informed consent process; (4) Information verification mechanisms. Discussion: Participants described mandatory school immunization requirements as shifting clinical consent encounters toward procedural compliance. Independent of the mandate, clinical encounters did not equip parents to discuss vaccine ingredients, and unaddressed religious inquiries prompted digital and community-based verification. Formal religious guidance on these concerns exists in the US but appeared unfamiliar to participants, unlike in some Muslim-majority contexts with coordinated religious-regulatory guidance. These findings, from a small qualitative sample, suggest that clinical communication alone may not resolve parents' difficulties, pointing to possible value in broader coordination among healthcare systems, manufacturers, and religious authorities.
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.