How should physicians and nurses deal with people who do not want immunizations?

A Behavioral analysis of nurses' and pharmacists' role in addressing vaccine hesitancy: scoping review

The purpose of this review was to identify, characterize, and map the existing knowledge on a) nurses' and pharmacists' perceived barriers and enablers to addressing vaccine hesitancy among patients; and b) strategies or interventions for nurses and pharmacists to address vaccine hesitancy in their practice. Our comprehensive search strategy targeted peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two independent reviewers screened papers and extracted data. We coded narrative descriptions of barriers and enablers and interventions using the Behavior Change Wheel. Sixty-six records were included in our review. Reported barriers (n = 9) and facilitators (n = 6) were identified in the capability, opportunity and motivation components. The majority of the reported interventions were categorized as education (n = 47) and training (n = 26). This current scoping review offers a detailed behavioral analysis of known barriers and enablers for nurses and pharmacists to address vaccine hesitancy and interventions mapped onto these behavioral determinants.

The architecture of provider-parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits

OBJECTIVE

To characterize provider-parent vaccine communication and determine the influence of specific provider communication practices on parent resistance to vaccine recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study in which we videotaped provider-parent vaccine discussions during health supervision visits. Parents of children aged 1 to 19 months old were screened by using the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey. We oversampled vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs), defined as a score ≥50. We developed a coding scheme of 15 communication practices and applied it to all visits. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore the association between provider communication practices and parent resistance to vaccines, controlling for parental hesitancy status and demographic and visit characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 111 vaccine discussions involving 16 providers from 9 practices; 50% included VHPs. Most providers (74%) initiated vaccine recommendations with presumptive (e.g., "Well, we have to do some shots") rather than participatory (e.g., "What do you want to do about shots?") formats. Among parents who voiced resistance to provider initiation (41%), significantly more were VHPs than non-VHPs. Parents had significantly higher odds of resisting vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (adjusted odds ratio: 17.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-253.5). When parents resisted, 50% of providers pursued their original recommendations (e.g., "He really needs these shots"), and 47% of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted recommendations when they did.

CONCLUSIONS

How providers initiate and pursue vaccine recommendations is associated with parental vaccine acceptance.

Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals

BACKGROUND

A critical factor shaping parental attitudes to vaccination is the parent's interactions with health professionals. An effective interaction can address the concerns of vaccine supportive parents and motivate a hesitant parent towards vaccine acceptance. Poor communication can contribute to rejection of vaccinations or dissatisfaction with care. We sought to provide a framework for health professionals when communicating with parents about vaccination.

METHODS

Literature review to identify a spectrum of parent attitudes or 'positions' on childhood vaccination with estimates of the proportion of each group based on population studies. Development of a framework related to each parental position with determination of key indicators, goals and strategies based on communication science, motivational interviewing and valid consent principles.

RESULTS

Five distinct parental groups were identified: the 'unquestioning acceptor' (30-40%), the 'cautious acceptor' (25-35%); the 'hesitant' (20-30%); the 'late or selective vaccinator' (2-27%); and the 'refuser' of all vaccines (<2%). The goals of the encounter with each group will vary, depending on the parents' readiness to vaccinate. In all encounters, health professionals should build rapport, accept questions and concerns, and facilitate valid consent. For the hesitant, late or selective vaccinators, or refusers, strategies should include use of a guiding style and eliciting the parent's own motivations to vaccinate while, avoiding excessive persuasion and adversarial debates. It may be necessary to book another appointment or offer attendance at a specialised adverse events clinic. Good information resources should also be used.

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals have a central role in maintaining public trust in vaccination, including addressing parents' concerns. These recommendations are tailored to specific parental positions on vaccination and provide a structured approach to assist professionals. They advocate respectful interactions that aim to guide parents towards quality decisions.

Addressing parents' concerns about childhood immunizations: a tutorial for primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Despite the dangers of vaccine-preventable infections and efforts by health care professionals to promote immunization, parents' resistance to routine childhood immunizations continues to grow. This phenomenon can give rise to frustration among health care providers, as well as create barriers in providing medical care to children in need. In response, we developed a CD-ROM-based tutorial that (1) explains the nature and origins of parents' concerns, (2) addresses clinical implications of resistance to immunization, (3) explores ethical and professional obligations that physicians have toward children and their parents, and (4) discusses how physicians can effectively address parents' concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Our goals were to evaluate the tutorial's effectiveness in improving physicians' (1) general knowledge about parents' resistance to childhood immunizations, (2) knowledge of adverse effects of immunization, and (3) attitudes toward parents' resistance to childhood immunization.

DESIGN/METHODS

After pretesting, expert review, and revision, the 45-minute Penn State Immunization Project tutorial was pilot tested with pediatric and family medicine residents at 7 training programs in 4 states (Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Iowa). Knowledge and attitudes were assessed by using a 26-item pretest/posttest, the results of which were then analyzed by using standard statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 122 residents completed the pretest/posttest. Statistically and clinically significant improvements were seen in residents' general knowledge, knowledge of adverse events, and all 5 attitudinal measures regarding childhood immunizations.

CONCLUSIONS

The tutorial Addressing Parents Concerns About Childhood Immunizations: A Tutorial for Primary Care Providers is effective in improving resident physicians' general knowledge, knowledge of adverse events, and attitudes. As such, this tutorial has the potential to enhance communication between parents and primary care providers and, more generally, improve clinicians' response to the growing resistance toward routine childhood immunizations.

Parental vaccine safety concerns. The experiences of pediatricians and family physicians

OBJECTIVES

Recently several concerns regarding vaccine safety have received significant media attention. Primary care physicians are the most common interface for parents with the immunization delivery system and are likely to have the greatest opportunity for exposure and experience with parental vaccine safety concerns.

METHODS

Mail survey study of a national random sample of 750 pediatricians (PDs) and 750 family physicians (FPs) was conducted in 2000. Outcome variables of primary interest included the number of parental vaccine refusals in the past year, frequency of specific parent vaccine safety concerns, and actions taken by physicians when parents refused a vaccine. Chi-square analysis was used to determine the significance of the association of each outcome variable of interest with physician specialty, frequency of vaccine refusal, and the demographic variables. Multivariate analysis explored the potential for independent predictors of physicians who experienced increases in vaccine refusal.

RESULTS

The response rate was 70%. Overall, 93% of PDs and 60% of FPs reported at least one parental vaccine refusal in their practice in the past year. PDs also were more likely than FPs to report an increase in the number of vaccine refusals over the past year (18% v 8%, p =0.01), while FPs were more likely to report a decrease in vaccine refusals over the same time period (18% v 11%; p <0.5). PDs were more likely than FPs to provide additional information regarding vaccines to parents who refused vaccines and/or to discuss the issue at later visits. The most common concerns of parents were related to short-term reactions and pain from multiple injections.

CONCLUSIONS

While almost all PDs and most FPs experienced at least one vaccine refusal from parents in the past year, far fewer physicians of both specialties observed an increase in their occurrence. Physicians must work to be consistently well informed of both the benefits of immunization as well as the issues of parental concern regarding vaccine safety.