Using motivational interviewing techniques to inform decision-making for COVID-19 vaccination

From vaccine hesitancy to vaccine motivation: A motivational interviewing based approach to vaccine counselling

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted Vaccine Hesitancy (VH) as an accelerating global phenomenon that must be addressed. According to the WHO, thirty to fifty percent of the world's population are VH. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based communication style demonstrated to significantly reduce VH. MI guides people toward change through the expression of empathy and by respecting an individual's autonomy. Healthcare providers (HCPs) are the primary implementors of vaccine policies and the most trusted advisors and influencers of vaccination intention at the individual patient level. Training HCPs in MI is one of the most effective strategies to overcome VH. Many countries are currently implementing HCP training programs and population-based MI interventions to improve vaccine uptake. MI conversations are 'the heart' of vaccine decision-making processes. Understanding individual patient-level drivers of hesitancy allows clinicians to efficiently provide tailored, accurate information that reinforces a person's own motivation and confidence in their own decision. This paper describes a 4-step practical framework designed to support HCPs in their dialogue with vaccine-hesitant patients. (1) Engaging to establish a trustful relationship and safety to freely express opinions, beliefs, and knowledge gaps; (2) Understanding what matters most to the individual; (3) Offering Information to co-build accurate knowledge in order to guide the individual toward vaccine intention (4) Clarifying and Accepting to validate an individual's decision-making autonomy. We believe that our pragmatic approach can contribute to greater acceptability of COVID-19 and other vaccines, and enable rapid deployment of practical MI skills across care systems.

Behavioral, cognitive and emotional determinants of getting vaccinated for COVID-19 and the mediating role of institutional trust among young adults in Cyprus

BACKGROUND

Vaccination uptake is a complex behavior, influenced by numerous factors. Behavioral science theories are commonly used to explain the psychosocial determinants of an individual's health behavior. This study examined the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention based on well-established theoretical models: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) and the Health Belief Model (HBM). Additionally, it examined the mediating role of institutional trust in the relationship between determinants of these models and vaccination intentions.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to May 2022, where university students in Cyprus completed an online survey.

RESULTS

A total of 484 university students completed the online survey, with 23.8% reporting being vaccinated with fewer than three vaccination doses and/or no intention to vaccinate further. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis showed that higher scores in institutional trust, perceived severity, motivation, physical and psychological capability were significantly associated with higher odds of intending to vaccinate. Higher psychological flexibility and not being infected with COVID-19 were also associated with higher odds of vaccination intention, but not in the final model when all determinants were included. Additionally, significant indirect effects of psychological and physical capability, motivation and perceived severity on vaccination intention were found to be mediated by institutional trust.

CONCLUSIONS

When tackling COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy, behavioural, cognitive, and emotional aspects should be considered. Stakeholders and policymakers are advised to implement targeted vaccination programs in young people while at the same time building trust and improving their capabilities and motivation towards getting vaccinated.

Occupational Health Providers' Perceptions of Employee Vaccine Hesitancy

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the perspectives of occupational health providers (OHPs) on the most frequently encountered clinically relevant reasons for employee vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

We conducted an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey of US OHPs ( N = 217). The survey asked OHPs about the major reasons that employees cite for being unwilling to receive the following three categories of vaccines: COVID-19, annual influenza, and others relevant to the workplace.

RESULTS

Concern about adverse effects was the most frequently reported reason for employee vaccine hesitancy for each vaccine category. Mistrust was reported more frequently for COVID-19 than for the influenza vaccine or other vaccines (χ 2P < 0.05). Targets of employee mistrust included government and researchers or scientists, but mistrust of healthcare providers was uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

These results can be used to inform interventions to address vaccine hesitancy in the occupational health setting.

Motivational interview training improves self-efficacy of GP interns in vaccination consultations: A study using the Pro-VC-Be to measure vaccine confidence determinants

Immunization-specific motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered communication style used to encourage internal motivation for attitudinal and behavioral change, can provide healthcare professionals (HCPs) with the skills and practice required to respond to patients' doubts and concerns related to vaccines. We sought to assess the impact of an MI-training of General Practitioner (GP) interns on the psychosocial determinants of their vaccine confidence and behaviors. French GP interns participated in a virtual three-day MI-workshop in southeastern France. We used the validated Pro-VC-Be questionnaire - before and after the MI-workshop spanning over three months - to measure the evolution of these determinants. Scores before and after workshop trainings were compared in pairs. Participants' scores for commitment to vaccination (+10.5 ± 20.5, P = .001), perceived self-efficacy (+36.0 ± 25.8, P < .0001), openness to patients (+18.7 ± 17.0, P < .0001), and trust in authorities (+9.5 ± 17.2, P = 0.01) significantly increased after the training sessions, but not the score for confidence in vaccines (+1.5 ± 11.9, P = .14). The effect sizes of the four score improvements were moderate to large, with self-efficacy and openness to patients having the largest effect sizes (P = .83 and 0.78, respectively). This study provides evidence that certain determinants of overall vaccine confidence in HCPs, reflected respectively in the openness to patients and self-efficacy scores of the Pro-VC-Be, improve after immunization MI-training workshops. Incorporating immunization-specific MI-training in the curriculum for HCPs could improve several necessary skills to improve HCP-patient relationships and be useful for vaccination and other healthcare services.

Vaccine hesitancy educational tools for healthcare providers and trainees: A scoping review

In the era of vaccine hesitancy, highlighted by the current SARS-CoV2 pandemic, there is an acute need to develop an approach to reduce and address apprehension towards vaccinations. We sought to map and present an overview of existing educational interventions for healthcare providers (HCPs) on strategies to engage in effective vaccine discussion. We applied the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology framework in this scoping review. We searched five relevant databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS) and grey literature through the Google search engine using keywords and subject headings that were systematically identified. We identified 3384 citations in peer-reviewed literature and 41 citations in grey literature. After screening for our inclusion criteria, we included 28 citations from peer reviewed literature and 16 citations from grey literature for analysis. We identified a total of 41 unique education interventions. Interventions were available from multiple disciplines, training levels, clinical settings, and diseases/vaccines. Interventions predominantly centered around two foci: knowledge sharing and communication training. Most interventions identified from peer-reviewed literature were facilitated and were applied with multiple modes of delivery. Interventions from grey literature were more topical and generally self-directed. We identified several gaps in knowledge. Firstly, accessibility and generalizability of interventions was limited. Secondly, distribution of interventions did not adequately address nursing and pharmacy disciplines, and did not cover the breadth of medical specialties for whom vaccine discussions apply. Thirdly, no interventions addressed self monitoring and the clinicians' recognition and management of emotions during difficult conversations. There is a need to address this gap and provide available, credible and comprehensive educational interventions that will support our healthcare providers in effective communication with vaccine hesitant patients.

Collective Motivational Interviewing for Individuals with Drug Use Problems: A Pre-Post-Follow-Up, Uncontrolled Pilot Study

Collective motivational interviewing (CMI) is a novelty motivational approach which optimises the motivational interviewing (MI) for individuals from collectivistic cultures. While MI has been empirically tested as an effective intervention for addictive disorders and has had a positive effect on facilitating lifestyle changes, CMI has retained the potency of MI as an individualistic intervention, and it further invites the social network resources to strengthen the level of motivation and cultivate a joint change partnership. This pilot study was the first clinical study of CMI to work with individuals with drug use problems (IDUPs) by involving concerned significant others (CSOs) in the three-session intervention, and the fidelity control was assessed by the Collective Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (CMITI) scale. This pre-post−follow-up and uncontrolled feasibility study was conducted between 2017 and 2019, with dyads of 20 IDUPs and their CSOs. The potential impacts of CMI were examined by measures at baseline, post-intervention, and 1-month and 3-month post-intervention. All clinical sessions were audio-recorded, and four cases were randomly selected for fidelity review by two trained coders. The normality of data at the baseline was checked by a Shapiro−Wilk test. Non-parametric Wilcoxon-signed-rank test and repeated-measures ANOVA were employed for quantitative analysis. The results showed that six IDUPs had reduced drug use, and ten maintained drug abstinence with the support of CSOs, whereas four IDUPs remained unchanged or increased drug use. Overall, at the 3-month follow-up, drug use was reduced (p > 0.05), social support was strengthened (p < 0.05), and the IDUPs’ motivation for change was enhanced (p < 0.05). However, the small sample sizes, non-random sampling, and lack of control group may limit the generalizability and confirmation of the outcomes and of the “real effects”. This finding of the study suggests that the CMI is a feasible and acceptable therapeutic tool to motivate IDUPs with the support of CSOs to achieve mutually agreed-upon goals. Further development and evaluation with robust methodology are warranted.