Parental knowledge on the respiratory syncytial virus before the nirsevimab immunization program: Attitudes toward immunization in an autonomous community of Spain

Figures & data

Table 1. Socio-demographic data from surveyed parents and respective children.

Children’s socio-demographic data	Total N = 3,217
Age (months)
Mean (SD)	11.43 (6.99)
95 CI%	(11.19, 11.67)
Range (Min,Max)	(0.00, 24.00)
Median (IQR)	11.00 (5.00, 18.00)
Preterm (<37 weeks)	256 (8.0%)
<35 weeks	92 (2.9%)
35–37 weeks	162 (5.0%)
Birth of child
Full term	2,961 (92.1%)
Preterm 35–37 weeks	162 (5.0%)
Preterm <35 weeks	92 (2.9%)
Siblings (number)	1542 (47.9%)
1	1136 (73.7%)
2	304 (19.7%)
>2	102 (6.6%)
Siblings
No siblings	1,675 (52.1%)
1	1,136 (35.3%)
2	304 (9.4%)
>2	102 (3.2%)
Chronic disease	80 (2.5%)
Congenital heart problem	18 (0.6%)
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia	7 (0.2%)
Lung disease with difficulty clearing secretions	4 (0.1%)
Neuromuscular disease	3 (0.1%)
Disease requiring immunosuppressive treatment	1 (0.0%)
Vaccinated by a vaccine not financed by the public health system	2,658 (82.6%)
Parents/guardians’	Total N = 3,217
Age of the parent/guardian (years)
<20	20 (0.6%)
20–29	442 (13.7%)
30–39	2151 (66.9%)
40–49	588 (18.3%)
>50	16 (0.5%)
Gender of the parent/guardian
Female	2772 (86.2%)
Male	440 (13.7%)
Non-binary	5 (0.2%)
Nationality of the parent/guardian
Spanish	2,812 (87.4%)
South American	228 (7.1%)
European	71 (2.2%)
African	53 (1.6%)
Central American	49 (1.5%)
Asian	4 (0.1%)
Education level of the parent/guardian
No studies/Primary studies	187 (5.8%)
Secondary education	1,085 (33.7%)
Higher education	1,945 (60.5%)
Parent/guardian HCP	617 (19.2%)

Data are shown as n (%), unless otherwise indicated.

95 CI%: 95% confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range.

Table 2. Parents/guardians’ knowledge on bronchiolitis and RSV.

	Total N = 3,217
Informed about what bronchiolitis is	3,081 (95.8%; 95%CI 95.0–96.4)
When did one hear about bronchiolitis?
Before pregnancy	1,258 (41.6%)
During pregnancy	239 (7.9%)
After the birth of the first child	1203 (39.8%)
Don’t remember when	322 (10.7%)
Previous experience with bronchiolitis	1,227 (38.1%)
Etiological information	382 (31.1%)
Health care required
Pediatric consultation	366 (30.9%)
Hospital emergency	333 (28.1%)
Hospital admission	213 (18.0%)
No care required	129 (10.9%)
Primary care emergencies	119 (10.1%)
ICU	24 (2.0%)
Satisfaction with the information received	1,198
Mean (SD)	3.26 (1.21)
95%CI	(3.19,3.33)
Range (Min,Max)	(1.00,5.00)
Median (IQR)	3.00 (3.00,4.00)
Informed about RSV	1,499 (46.6%; 95%CI 44.9–48.3)
When did one hear about RSV?
Before pregnancy	538 (36.1%)
During pregnancy	101 (6.8%)
After the birth of the first child	628 (42.1%)
Don’t remember when	224 (15.0%)
Knowledge acquisition about bronchiolitis or RSV
From family or friends	888 (31.2%)
Previous experiences	736 (25.8%)
Books, media or social networks	650 (22.8%)
Training/work in the health care setting	406 (14.3%)
By HCP	136 (4.8%)
Teachers	10 (0.4%)
Not aware of bronchiolitis	16 (0.6%)
Others	6 (0.2%)

Satisfaction with the information received in case of previous experience with a child with bronchiolitis is measured with a Likert scale, from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest score.

Data are shown as n (%), unless otherwise indicated.

95%CI: 95% confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range.

Figure 1. Parents’ opinion on the importance of having information about RSV immunization.

The degree of importance was measured on a scale from 1 to 9, with 1 being the lowest and 9 the highest score.

Figure 2. Parents’ opinion about the appropriate time (a) and way (b) to receive information.

Table 3. Parents’ knowledge of nirsevimab.

	Total N = 3,217	Previously informed about nirsevimab N = 359	Not informed about nirsevimab N = 2,858
Previously informed about RSV prevention with nirsevimab	3217 (100.0%)	359 (11.2%; 95%CI 10.1–12.3)	2858 (88.8%)
Acceptance of nirsevimab (proactivity)	3123 (97.1%; 95%CI 96.5–97.7)	351 (97.8%)	2772 (97.0%)
Estimated benefit of nirsevimab as a preventive strategy
Mean (SD)	3.66 (1.21)	4.33 (0.94)	3.57 (1.21)
95%CI	(3.62,3.70)	(4.23,4.42)	(3.53,3.62)
Range (Min,Max)	(1.00,5.00)	(1.00,5.00)	(1.00,5.00)
Median (IQR)	4.00 (3.00,5.00)	5.00 (4.00,5.00)	4.00 (3.00,5.00)
Doubts about this new immunization	3003 (93.3%)	277 (77.2%)	2726 (95.4%)
Mean (SD)	3.63 (1.36)	2.77 (1.29)	3.73 (1.33)
95%CI	(3.58,3.67)	(2.64,2.91)	(3.68,3.78)
Range (Min,Max)	(1.00,5.00)	(1.00,5.00)	(1.00,5.00)
Median (IQR)	4.00(3.00,5.00)	3.00(2.00,4.00)	4.00(3.00,5.00)

Estimated benefit of nirsevimab as a preventive strategy and the was measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest score.

Doubts about this new immunization were measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree.

Data are shown as n (%), unless otherwise indicated.

95%CI: 95% confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range.

Figure 3. Parents’ opinion about the main reasons for accepting (a) and doubting (b) nirsevimab.

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.