‘It's just the normal thing to do’: Exploring parental decision-making about the ‘five-in-one’ vaccine

Is the pre-natal period a missed opportunity for communicating with parents about immunizations? Evidence from a longitudinal qualitative study in Victoria, British Columbia

Background

Growing evidence shows that many parents begin the decision-making process about infant vaccination during pregnancy and these decisions – once established – may be resistant to change. Despite this, many interventions targeting vaccination are focused on communicating with parents after their baby is born. This suggests that the prenatal period may constitute a missed opportunity for communicating with expectant parents about infant vaccination.

Methods

Using a longitudinal qualitative design, we conducted two interviews (prepartum and postpartum) with women (n = 19) to explore the optimal timing of vaccination information. The data were analyzed thematically, and examined across all sets of pre- and post-partum interviews as well as within each individual participant to draw out salient themes.

Results

Most participants formed their intentions to vaccinate before the baby was born and indicated that they would welcome information about vaccination from their maternity care providers. However, few individuals recalled their maternity care providers initiating vaccination-related conversations with them.

Conclusion

The prenatal period is an important time to begin conversations with expectant parents about vaccinating their infants, particularly if these conversations are initiated by trusted maternity care providers. More information is needed on how maternity care providers can be better supported to have these conversations with their patients.

Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents' views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination.

OBJECTIVES

- Explore parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents' or caregivers' views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income-level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta-ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination identified by this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 145 studies in the review and sampled 27 of these for our analysis. Six studies were conducted in Africa, seven in the Americas, four in South-East Asia, nine in Europe, and one in the Western Pacific. Studies included urban and rural settings, and high-, middle-, and low-income settings. Many complex factors were found to influence parents' vaccination views and practices, which we divided into four themes. Firstly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their broader ideas and practices surrounding health and illness generally, and specifically with regards to their children, and their perceptions of the role of vaccination within this context. Secondly, many parents' vaccination ideas and practices were influenced by the vaccination ideas and practices of the people they mix with socially. At the same time, shared vaccination ideas and practices helped some parents establish social relationships, which in turn strengthened their views and practices around vaccination. Thirdly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by wider political issues and concerns, and particularly their trust (or distrust) in those associated with vaccination programmes. Finally, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their access to and experiences of vaccination services and their frontline healthcare workers. We developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccination. The first concept, 'neoliberal logic', suggests that many parents, particularly from high-income countries, understood health and healthcare decisions as matters of individual risk, choice, and responsibility. Some parents experienced this understanding as in conflict with vaccination programmes, which emphasise generalised risk and population health. This perceived conflict led some parents to be less accepting of vaccination for their children. The second concept, 'social exclusion', suggests that some parents, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, were less accepting of childhood vaccination due to their experiences of social exclusion. Social exclusion may damage trustful relationships between government and the public, generate feelings of isolation and resentment, and give rise to demotivation in the face of public services that are poor quality and difficult to access. These factors in turn led some parents who were socially excluded to distrust vaccination, to refuse vaccination as a form of resistance or a way to bring about change, or to avoid vaccination due to the time, costs, and distress it creates. Many of the overarching factors our review identified as influencing parents' vaccination views and practices were underrepresented in the interventions tested in the four related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review has revealed that parents' views and practices regarding childhood vaccination are complex and dynamic social processes that reflect multiple webs of influence, meaning, and logic. We have provided a theorised understanding of the social processes contributing to vaccination acceptance (or not), thereby complementing but also extending more individualistic models of vaccination acceptance. Successful development of interventions to promote acceptance and uptake of childhood vaccination will require an understanding of, and then tailoring to, the specific factors influencing vaccination views and practices of the group(s) in the target setting. The themes and concepts developed through our review could serve as a basis for gaining this understanding, and subsequent development of interventions that are potentially more aligned with the norms, expectations, and concerns of target users.

Vaccine Information Sources and Parental Trust in Their Child's Health Care Provider

BACKGROUND

Parental trust in their child's health care provider and the number and type of vaccine information sources are important dimensions of vaccine hesitancy and may suggest intervention components for future research.

METHOD

We conducted secondary analysis of survey data from mothers of healthy newborns in Washington State, and examined the association between parental trust in their child's health care provider and vaccine information sources.

RESULTS

We found that mothers with less trust in their child's health care provider used more sources, more informal sources, and were less likely to consider their child's pediatrician their main source of vaccine information compared with more trusting mothers. However, less trusting mothers did not report more effort to read or watch stories about vaccines than more trusting mothers, nor were they more likely to report the internet as their main vaccine information source.

CONCLUSIONS

Future interventions seeking to reduce parental vaccine hesitancy should consider intervention components focused on building or improving parent trust in their child's health care provider.

Immunizing Children: A Qualitative Analysis of Future Parental Decision Making

Vaccinations are considered one of public health's greatest accomplishments. Despite evidence for vaccine effectiveness, uptake levels are still well below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines. The immunization decision-making process for parents is complex and depends on factors associated with knowledge and experiences. This qualitative study sought to expand on a previous decision-making model for immunizations by examining how individuals receive vaccination information, determining the role of experience in influencing decisions, and understanding how young adults might locate vaccination information in the future. Three focus groups were conducted with 29 undergraduate students without children. Results suggest that young adults exhibit an awareness of information regarding vaccine use and effectiveness, value doctor opinions and recommendations, and desire more robust research on vaccinations. Implications of these results include the importance of (1) disseminating vaccination education to young adults, (2) enhancing consistency/trust between medical professionals and youth, and (3) expanding public policy to increase vaccine uptake.

An integrative review on parents' perceptions of their children's vaccinations

An integrative literature review was conducted for studies published between January 2005 and January 2016 to obtain evidence on parents' experiences and perceptions of vaccinations. Considering the mandatory nature of vaccinations in many countries and the influences of parental experiences on the outcome of vaccinations, it is essential to understand the experiences and needs of parents regarding their children's vaccinations. CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect were searched for data. In this review, 20 studies (10 quantitative and 10 qualitative) that related to parental perceptions regarding their child's vaccination were included. The parents had varied views on vaccination and they had many vaccination-related concerns and difficulties. Different factors influenced their vaccination decisions and they had varied support needs. This review found that exploring parental perceptions regarding their child's vaccination in terms of the attitudes and experiences of parents, how these affect vaccination decisions as well as the needs of parents regarding their children's vaccinations is important in multicultural societies.

The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations

OBJECTIVES

The success of vaccination strategies depends in part on population perceptions of benefits and risks of vaccines and related confidence in vaccination. Better knowledge of public concerns about vaccines and what is driving them is needed to inform vaccination strategies and communications. This literature reviewer examined studies on vaccine and vaccination risk perceptions and concerns across European populations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies published between 2004 and 2014 in Europe. A descriptive analysis was performed.

FINDINGS

A total of 145 articles were selected, most of which were conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and France and studied seasonal influenza, HPV and pandemic influenza vaccination. Across all countries and vaccines, the primary area of concern was vaccine safety, followed by perceptions of low likelihood of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), perceived low severity of VPDs, beliefs that vaccines do not work, and overall lack of information. Concerns were found to be vaccine-, country- and population-specific.

CONCLUSION

In addition to identifying concerns about vaccination in Europe, this study confirmed the notion that individuals have many safety concerns about vaccination and often believe that the risks of vaccination outweigh their benefits. More research needs to be conducted to explore the impact of different types of communication strategies, which would frame the benefits of vaccination as well as risks of not vaccinating. Strategies to better inform public perceptions of vaccines should include the provision of unbiased, comprehensive information tailored to population information needs, and delivered using multiple and new communication technologies such as social media.

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is an effective way to prevent serious childhood illnesses, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. There are various reasons for this; some parents lack access because of poor quality health services, long distances or lack of money. Other parents may not trust vaccines or the healthcare workers who provide them, or they may not see the need for vaccination due to a lack of information or misinformation about how vaccinations work and the diseases they can prevent.Communication with parents about childhood vaccinations is one way of addressing these issues. Communication can take place at healthcare facilities, at home or in the community. Communication can be two-way, for example face-to-face discussions between parents and healthcare providers, or one-way, for instance via text messages, posters or radio programmes. Some types of communication enable parents to actively discuss vaccines and their benefits and harms, as well as diseases they can prevent. Other communication types simply give information about vaccination issues or when and where vaccines are available. People involved in vaccine programmes need to understand how parents experience different types of communication about vaccination and how this influences their decision to vaccinate.

OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the review were to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring: parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences regarding communication about childhood vaccinations and the manner in which it is communicated; and the influence that vaccination communication has on parents' and informal caregivers' decisions regarding childhood vaccination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-Index Citations (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), and Anthropology Plus (EbscoHost) databases for eligible studies from inception to 30 August 2016. We developed search strategies for each database, using guidelines developed by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group for searching for qualitative evidence as well as modified versions of the search developed for three related reviews of effectiveness. There were no date or geographic restrictions for the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on the views and experiences of parents and informal caregivers regarding information about vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where information about childhood vaccinations was communicated or distributed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used maximum variation purposive sampling for data synthesis, using a three-step sampling frame. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparison strategy for data extraction and synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. High confidence suggests that it is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest, while very low confidence indicates that it is not clear whether the review finding is a reasonable representation of it. Using a matrix model, we then integrated our findings with those from other Cochrane reviews that assessed the effects of different communication strategies on parents' knowledge, attitudes and behaviour about childhood vaccination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 studies, mostly from high-income countries, many of which explored mothers' perceptions of vaccine communication. Some focused on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.In general, parents wanted more information than they were getting (high confidence in the evidence). Lack of information led to worry and regret about vaccination decisions among some parents (moderate confidence).Parents wanted balanced information about vaccination benefits and harms (high confidence), presented clearly and simply (moderate confidence) and tailored to their situation (low confidence in the evidence). Parents wanted vaccination information to be available at a wider variety of locations, including outside health services (low confidence) and in good time before each vaccination appointment (moderate confidence).Parents viewed health workers as an important source of information and had specific expectations of their interactions with them (high confidence). Poor communication and negative relationships with health workers sometimes impacted on vaccination decisions (moderate confidence).Parents generally found it difficult to know which vaccination information source to trust and challenging to find information they felt was unbiased and balanced (high confidence).The amount of information parents wanted and the sources they felt could be trusted appeared to be linked to acceptance of vaccination, with parents who were more hesitant wanting more information (low to moderate confidence).Our synthesis and comparison of the qualitative evidence shows that most of the trial interventions addressed at least one or two key aspects of communication, including the provision of information prior to the vaccination appointment and tailoring information to parents' needs. None of the interventions appeared to respond to negative media stories or address parental perceptions of health worker motives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to several review findings. Further research, especially in rural and low- to middle-income country settings, could strengthen evidence for the findings where we had low or very low confidence. Planners should consider the timing for making vaccination information available to parents, the settings where information is available, the provision of impartial and clear information tailored to parental needs, and parents' perceptions of health workers and the information provided.

Why do parents decline newborn intramuscular vitamin K prophylaxis?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the influencing factors and reasoning of parents who opt out of intramuscular vitamin K prophylaxis for their newborn.

DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study with 15 families from the Otago/Southland region of New Zealand. Semistructured interviews explored their choice to opt out of intramuscular vitamin K prophylaxis and thematic analysis was used to elucidate themes that captured important aspects of this parental decision-making process.

RESULTS

Parents opt out of intramuscular vitamin K for a variety of reasons. These were clustered into three main themes: parents' beliefs and values (philosophy and spirituality), concerns about their child's welfare (pain and potential side effects) and external influencing factors (family, friends, media and health professionals). As part of a wider family hesitancy towards medical intervention, the majority of parents also raised concerns regarding other perinatal or childhood interventions.

CONCLUSION

Many factors influence parental decision making and lead to a decision to opt out of newborn intramuscular vitamin K prophylaxis. Due to strong parallels with other common childhood interventions, these findings have relevance for vitamin K prophylaxis and for other healthcare interventions in childhood.

Taking stock and looking ahead: Behavioural science lessons for implementing the nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine

The development and licensing of a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from HPV-related cancers beyond that of first generation HPV vaccines. However, this benefit can only be realised if the offer of vaccination is accepted. Uptake of first generation HPV vaccines is not complete and shows huge global variation. In addition to practical and financial challenges to optimising coverage, behavioural issues explain a large proportion of the variance in vaccine receipt. This commentary draws on the findings of over a decade of behavioural science research seeking to understand uptake of first generation HPV vaccines, in order to anticipate challenges to implement the nonavalent HPV vaccine. Challenges include distrust of combination vaccines, uncertainty about long-term efficacy, distrust of a new and (perceived to be) untested vaccine, cost and uncertainty regarding interchanging doses of first generation and nonavalent vaccines and the appropriateness of revaccination. We use behavioural science theory and existing evaluations of interventions to increase uptake of vaccines to identify evidence-based approaches that can be implemented by vaccine stakeholders to address parents' concerns and maximise uptake of the nonavalent HPV vaccine.

Skewed risk perceptions in pregnant women: the case of influenza vaccination

Background

Pregnant women and their newborns have an increased risk of developing severe influenza and influenza-related complications. In Germany, seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for pregnant women since 2010. However, little is known about pregnant women’s vaccination-related knowledge and attitudes, as well as their risk perceptions. This study therefore assessed pregnant women’s vaccination-related knowledge, risk perceptions related to influenza disease and influenza vaccination during pregnancy, and aimed to identify determinants of influenza vaccination uptake during pregnancy in Germany.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2014, a nationwide web-based prospective cohort study with follow-up interviews was conducted in initially pregnant women who gave birth over the study period. Control groups were set up in a cross-sectional fashion during the follow-up interviews. Women who participated in both, the baseline interview before giving birth and in the 1st interview after giving birth were included in the analysis. Univariate and multiple logistic regression were used to identify associations between influenza vaccination uptake and sociodemographic characteristics as well as items assessing attitude and knowledge.

Results

In total, 838 women were included in the analyses. Pregnant women had a positive attitude towards vaccination in general, but only modest vaccination knowledge. Overall, 10.9 % of women were vaccinated against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. While pregnant women perceived classical childhood diseases to be more risky than the respective vaccinations, this relation reversed for influenza: The risk of vaccination was perceived higher than the risk of the disease. These two types of risk perceptions independently determined influenza vaccination uptake—higher perception of disease risk and lower perceptions of vaccination-related risks increased uptake. Additionally, knowledge about the vaccination recommendation for pregnant women and a positive gynaecologist’s attitude towards vaccination during pregnancy influenced the uptake significantly.

Conclusions

Influenza vaccination uptake in pregnant women is low in Germany. Tailored communication strategies for pregnant women should focus especially on changing the perceptions of personal risks regarding influenza and influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Gynaecologists should be made aware about their crucial role in supporting vaccination decision-making of pregnant women and the need to provide relevant information to counteract misconceptions.

Immune overload: Parental attitudes toward combination and single antigen vaccines

Parental concerns have led to a recent decline in immunization coverage, resulting in outbreaks of diseases that were once under control in the US. As the CDC vaccination schedule continues to increase in complexity, the number of required injections per office visit increases as well. Some parents perceive that there is trauma associated with the administration of multiple injections, and research shows that having multiple vaccines due in a single visit is associated with delays and lower immunization rates. Combination vaccines make vaccination more efficient by incorporating the antigens of several different diseases into a single injection, but many parents worry that they may overload the child's developing immune system and leave him or her susceptible to secondary infections. This literature review synthesizes current evidence regarding the parental fear of vaccine-induced immune system overload and the fear of vaccine-associated trauma, in an attempt to understand the scope and nature of these fears. Despite the wealth of knowledge about each of these fears individually, it is still unknown which is of greater concern and how this affects parental decision-making.

Physician response to parental requests to spread out the recommended vaccine schedule

OBJECTIVES

To assess among US physicians (1) frequency of requests to spread out recommended vaccination schedule for children <2 years, (2) attitudes regarding such requests, and (3) strategies used and perceived effectiveness in response to such requests.

METHODS

An e-mail and mail survey of a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and family physicians from June 2012 through October 2012.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66% (534 of 815). In a typical month, 93% reported some parents of children <2 years requested to spread out vaccines; 21% reported ≥ 10% of parents made this request. Most respondents thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease (87%) and that it was more painful for children (84%), but if they agreed to requests, it would build trust with families (82%); further, they believed that if they did not agree, families might leave their practice (80%). Forty percent reported this issue had decreased their job satisfaction. Most agreed to spread out vaccines when requested, either often/always (37%) or sometimes (37%); 2% would often/always, 4% would sometimes, and 12% would rarely dismiss families from their practice if they wanted to spread out the primary series. Physicians reported using a variety of strategies in response to requests but did not think they were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtually all providers encounter requests to spread out vaccines in a typical month and, despite concerns, most are agreeing to do so. Providers are using many strategies in response but think few are effective. Evidence-based interventions to increase timely immunization are needed to guide primary care and public health practice.

Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: a qualitative study using online focus groups

Background

In high income countries, vaccine-preventable diseases have been greatly reduced through routine vaccination programs. Despite this success, many parents question, and a small proportion even refuse vaccination for their children. As no qualitative studies have explored the factors behind these decisions among Dutch parents, we performed a study using online focus groups.

Methods

In total, eight online focus groups (n = 60) which included Dutch parents with at least one child, aged 0–4 years, for whom they refused all or part of the vaccinations within the National Immunization Program (NIP). A thematic analysis was performed to explore factors that influenced the parents’ decisions to refuse vaccination.

Results

Refusal of vaccination was found to reflect multiple factors including family lifestyle; perceptions about the child’s body and immune system; perceived risks of disease, vaccine efficacy, and side effects; perceived advantages of experiencing the disease; prior negative experience with vaccination; and social environment. The use of online focus groups proved to be an effective qualitative research method providing meaningful data.

Conclusion

Information provided by the NIP turned out to be insufficient for this group of parents. More trust in the NIP and deliberate decisions might result from increased parental understanding of lifestyle and disease susceptibility, the impact of vaccinations on the immune system, and the relative risks of diseases and their vaccines. The public health institute should also inform parents that the NIP is recommended but non-mandatory.

A Q-methodology study of parental understandings of infant immunisation: Implications for health-care advice

This study used Q-methodology to explore systematically parental judgements about infant immunisation. A total of 45 parents completed a 31-statement Q-sort. Data were collected after vaccination in general practitioner practices or a private day nursery. Q factor analysis revealed four distinct viewpoints: a duty to immunise based on medical benefits, child-orientated protection based on parental belief, concern and distress and surprise at non-compliance. Additionally, there was a common view among parents that they did not regret immunising their children. Implications of these results are discussed in terms of health-care policy and future research.

The role of herd immunity in parents' decision to vaccinate children: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Herd immunity is an important benefit of childhood immunization, but it is unknown if the concept of benefit to others influences parents' decisions to immunize their children. Our objective was to determine if the concept of "benefit to others" has been found in the literature to influence parents' motivation for childhood immunization.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline through October 2010 for articles on parental/guardian decision-making regarding child immunization. Studies were included if they presented original work, elicited responses from parents/guardians of children <18 years old, and addressed vaccinating children for the benefit of others.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5876 titles; 91 articles were identified for full review. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies identified benefit to others as 1 among several motivating factors for immunization by using interviews or focus groups. Nine studies included the concept of benefit to others in surveys but did not rank its relative importance. In 3 studies, the importance of benefit to others was ranked relative to other motivating factors. One to six percent of parents ranked benefit to others as their primary reason to vaccinate their children, and 37% of parents ranked benefit to others as their second most important factor in decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be some parental willingness to immunize children for the benefit of others, but its relative importance as a motivator is largely unknown. Further work is needed to explore this concept as a possible motivational tool for increasing childhood immunization uptake.

Factors influencing parental decision making when parents choose to deviate from the standard pediatric immunization schedule

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to present the results of a study focusing on the basis for parental decisions to refrain from the standard pediatric immunization schedule.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was based upon open-ended qualitative items that were subjected to content analysis to identify the prominent themes cited by parents.

RESULTS

The results of the study demonstrate the presence of a variety of continuing misperceptions regarding the risks represented by common pediatric immunizations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study demonstrates the need for intensive efforts designed to apprise families of the risks and benefits associated with pediatric immunization.

The Immunisation Beliefs and Intentions Measure (IBIM): predicting parents' intentions to immunise preschool children

In England, uptake of the second dose of MMR (against measles, mumps, rubella), and dTaP/IPV or DTaP/IPV booster (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio), is lower than that of the primary course. The Immunisation Beliefs and Intentions Measure (IBIM), based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and qualitative interviews, was used to predict parents' intentions to take preschoolers for these recommended vaccinations. Parents from 43 child groups in southern England were randomised to receiving questions about either MMR (N=193) or dTaP/IPV (N=159). Overall, 255 parents fully completed TPB-based items. Regression analyses revealed that parental attitudes about the protective benefits of immunising and perceived behavioural control were strong, reliable predictors of intention to immunise with MMR. For dTaP/IPV, perceived protective benefits and number of children reliably predicted intention to immunise. Differences between parents with 'maximum immunisation intentions' and those with 'less than maximum intentions' are described. The IBIM appears to be a useful measure for predicting parents' intentions to immunise preschoolers. Implications for improving uptake are discussed.

Parents' views about pre-school immunization: an interview study in southern England

BACKGROUND

National Health Service immunization statistics for England indicate that uptake of the first plus second dose of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pre-school booster against diphtheria, tetanus, polio and pertussis, is lower than for the primary course alone. This qualitative study aimed to explore parents' views about pre-school immunization and to identify possible reasons for lower pre-school uptake compared with the primary course.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 parents of children aged 2-5 years from 19 family units. The parents were recruited from nine playgroups and pre-schools in three locations in southern England. Data collection and analysis were guided by a modified Grounded Theory approach.

RESULTS

Although most parents believed pre-school immunization to be important and most intended to immunise, a minority questioned whether it was necessary based on their understanding of the duration of protection provided by the primary course. Compared with primary immunization, parents typically received no information about pre-school doses prior to their invitation to attend and had little or no contact with healthcare professionals. Other barriers included minor illness, apprehension about taking an older child for vaccinations and work or childcare commitments.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents reported uncertainties, anxieties and time constraints, all of which may contribute to poor attendance for pre-school immunization. These findings have important implications for providing parents with timely information about boosters and the two-dose MMR programme. They indicate the potential value of playgroup or pre-school involvement and the need for improved communication with children about immunization.

Parental attitudes and information needs in an adolescent HPV vaccination programme

We sent a questionnaire to 38% (1084) of 2817 parents whose daughters had been offered human papillomavirus vaccination and who had agreed to participate. Of these, 60% (651) returned a questionnaire. Responses suggested that fact sheets and parent information evenings confirmed, rather than changed, consent decisions. The views of active refusers on safety and efficacy may be difficult to change, lowering vaccine coverage.