Evaluation of a Vaccine-Communication Tool for Physicians

Addressing Missed Opportunities for Vaccination among Children in Hospitals: Leveraging the P-Process for Health Communication Strategies

Addressing missed opportunities for vaccination requires a nuanced and context-specific approach. The five-step P-Process provides a robust framework to develop a clearly defined strategy that addresses social and behavioral drivers, integrates into existing health delivery systems, and facilitates collaboration with local experts. This approach allows teams to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate strategies to address public health issues. However, its specific application in vaccination communication programs remains relatively underexplored and under-documented. Our team designed a multi-pronged communication intervention aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake among hospitalized children in two tertiary hospitals in India and Nigeria. In the Inquiry stage, we conducted in-depth interviews with caregivers of hospitalized children to assess barriers to vaccination in a hospital setting. In the Strategic Development stage, we developed a blueprint for activities, identifying target audiences and communication channels and developing implementation plans. During the Create and Test stage, we brought together a range of stakeholders to co-develop a communication intervention through human-centered design workshops, after which we piloted the materials in both hospitals. We then Mobilized and Monitored progress of the activities to identify potential gaps that our materials did not initially address. Lastly, in the Evaluate and Evolve stage, we conducted in-depth interviews with healthcare workers and caregivers to measure outcomes and assess the impact on caregivers' decisions to vaccinate their hospitalized children. By following the P-Process for the design, caregivers reported that many of their concerns about vaccines were alleviated, and HCWs reported that they were able to communicate with caregivers more effectively about vaccination. By harnessing the power of the P-Process, researchers can forge a context-specific path towards impactful vaccination communication interventions, one step at a time.

Effectiveness of Catch-Up Vaccination Interventions Versus Standard or Usual Care Procedures in Increasing Adherence to Recommended Vaccinations Among Different Age Groups: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Before-After Studies

BACKGROUND

To address the global challenge of vaccine hesitancy, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization strongly promotes vaccination reminder and recall interventions. Coupled with the new opportunities presented by scientific advancements, these measures are crucial for successfully immunizing target population groups.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of various interventions in increasing vaccination coverage compared with standard or usual care. The review will cover all vaccinations recommended for different age groups.

METHODS

In February 2022, 2 databases were consulted, retrieving 1850 studies. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 79 manuscripts were included after the assessment phase. These comprised 46 trials/randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 33 before-after studies. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed with STATA software (version 14.1.2). The selected outcome was the risk ratio (RR) of vaccination coverage improvement effectiveness. Additionally, meta-regression analyses were conducted for the included manuscripts.

RESULTS

The analyses showed an overall efficacy of RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.19-1.26) for RCTs and RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.54-1.87) for before-after studies when considering all interventions cumulatively. Subgroup analyses identified multicomponent interventions (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36-1.85) and recall clinical interventions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17-1.32) as the most effective in increasing vaccination coverage for RCTs. By contrast, educational interventions (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.60-2.83) and multicomponent interventions (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) achieved the highest increases for before-after studies. Meta-regression analyses indicated that the middle-aged adult population was associated with a higher increase in vaccination coverage (RCT: coefficient 0.54, 95% CI 0.12-0.95; before-after: coefficient 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Community, family, and health care-based multidimensional interventions, as well as education-based catch-up strategies, effectively improve vaccination coverage. Therefore, their systematic implementation is highly relevant for targeting undervaccinated population groups. This approach aligns with national vaccination schedules and aims to eliminate or eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.

A World without Measles and Rubella: Addressing the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy

The worldwide elimination of measles and rubella is feasible, but not without overcoming the substantial challenge of vaccine hesitancy. This challenge is complicated by the spread of misinformation and disinformation fueled by rapidly progressing technologies and evolving forms of online communication. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has only added further complexity to this challenge. However, considerable progress has been made in understanding the scope of the problem and the complex factors that influence vaccine hesitancy. Our understanding of evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy has grown significantly, including evidence for effective communication and behavioral interventions. In this article, we review measles and rubella vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. We then provide an overview of evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy, including communication strategies and behavioral interventions. This article is relevant to healthcare professionals, health system leaders, public health professionals, policymakers, community leaders, and any individuals who have a role in addressing vaccine hesitancy in their communities. Finally, we review future directions and major areas of research need.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

Clinician Communication to Address Vaccine Hesitancy

There are several factors that influence childhood vaccine uptake. Pediatric clinicians play a particularly influential role in parent vaccine decision-making. It is critical therefore that pediatric clinicians have a "communication toolbox"--a set of effective, evidence-based communication strategies to facilitate uptake of childhood vaccines--that they can use in conversations with parents about vaccines. In this article, recent advances in our understanding of what constitutes effective clinician vaccine communication with parents are discussed.

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.

A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is considered a top-10 global health threat. The concept of VH has been described and applied inconsistently. This systematic review aims to clarify VH by analysing how it is operationalized. We searched PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases on 14 January 2022. We selected 422 studies containing operationalizations of VH for inclusion. One limitation is that studies of lower quality were not excluded. Our qualitative analysis reveals that VH is conceptualized as involving (1) cognitions or affect, (2) behaviour and (3) decision making. A wide variety of methods have been used to measure VH. Our findings indicate the varied and confusing use of the term VH, leading to an impracticable concept. We propose that VH should be defined as a state of indecisiveness regarding a vaccination decision.

Standardized Vaccine-Hesitant Patients in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Vaccine Communication Training

OBJECTIVES

To determine if training residents in a structured communication method elicits specific behaviors in a laboratory model of interaction with vaccine-hesitant parents.

STUDY DESIGN

Standardized patients portraying vaccine-hesitant parents were used to assess the effectiveness of training in the Announce, Inquire, Mirror, Secure (AIMS) Method for Healthy Conversations. Blinded pediatric residents were pseudorandomized to receive AIMS or control training and underwent pre- and post-training encounters with blinded standardized patients. Encounters were assessed by blinded raters using a novel tool. Participant confidence and standardized patient evaluations of the participants' general communication skills were assessed.

RESULTS

Ratings were available for 27 AIMS and 26 control participants. Statistically significant increases in post-training scores (maximum = 30) were detected in AIMS, but not in control, participants (median, 21.3 [IQR, 19.8-24.8] vs 18.8 [IQR, 16.9-20.9]; P < .001). Elements (maximum score = 6) with significant increases were Inquire (0.67 [IQR, 0-1.76] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P < .001); Mirror (1.33 [IQR, 0 to 2] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.92 to 0]; P < .001) and Secure (0.33 [IQR, 0 to 1.67] vs -0.17 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P = .017). Self-confidence increased equally in both groups. Standardized patients did not detect a difference in communication skills after training and between groups. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the assessment tool were modest.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized patients proved useful in studying the effectiveness of structured communication training, but may have been limited in their ability to perceive a difference between groups owing to the predetermined encounter outcome of vaccine refusal. AIMS training should be studied in real-world scenarios to determine if it impacts vaccine acceptance.

Parental vaccine hesitancy: scope, causes, and potential responses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the literature about parental vaccine hesitancy, focusing on publications from October 2019 to April 2021 to describe patterns and causes of hesitancy and interventions to address hesitancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies expand understanding of the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy globally and highlight associated individual and contextual factors. Common concerns underlying hesitancy include uncertainty about the need for vaccination and questions about vaccine safety and efficacy. Sociodemographic factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy vary across locations and contexts. Studies about psychology of hesitancy and how parents respond to interventions highlight the role of cognitive biases, personal values, and vaccination as a social contract or norm. Evidence-based strategies to address vaccine hesitancy include presumptive or announcement approaches to vaccine recommendations, motivational interviewing, and use of immunization delivery strategies like standing orders and reminder/recall programs. A smaller number of studies support use of social media and digital applications to improve vaccination intent. Strengthening school vaccine mandates can improve vaccination rates, but policy decisions must consider local context.

SUMMARY

Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge for child health. Future work must include more interventional studies to address hesitancy and regular global surveillance of parental vaccine hesitancy and vaccine content on social media.

A Select Bibliography of Actions to Promote Vaccine Literacy: A Resource for Health Communication

In this bibliography, the researchers provide an introduction to the available evidence base of actions to promote vaccine literacy. The research team organized interventions to create a tool that can inform health communicators and practitioners seeking a resource focused on strategy and implementation design for actions that support vaccine literacy. This scoping bibliography is honed specifically to respond to the urgency of the current pandemic, when supporting and increasing vaccine literacy offers promise for achieving the critically needed high levels of vaccination. Over the course of the coming months and year, this bibliography will be a dynamic and "living" document hosted and maintained on vaccineliteracy.com.