Parental attitudes and decision-making regarding MMR vaccination in an anthroposophic community in Sweden – A qualitative study

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians: a qualitative study with general practitioners and paediatricians in Austria and Germany

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy (VH) among general practioners (GPs) and paediatricians. We aim to analyse how and when the healthcare workers (HCWs) developed vaccine-hesitant views and how they transfer these to patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Semistructured interviews with vaccine-hesitant GPs and paediatricians were conducted in Austria and Germany using an explorative qualitative research design.

PARTICIPANTS

We contacted 41 physicians through letters and emails and 10 agreed to participate, five were male and five female.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Ten interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The material was analysed inductively following a grounded theory approach with open coding using the software atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Key themes that were identified were education and career path, understanding of medicine and medical profession, experiences with vaccines, doctor-patient interactions and continuous education activities and the link to VH. GPs and paediatricians' vaccine-hesitant attitudes developed during their medical training and, in particular, during extracurricular training in homeopathy, which most of the participants completed. Most participants work in private practices rather than with contracts with social insurance because they are not satisfied with the health system. Furthermore, they are critical of biomedicine. Most of the interview partners do not consider themselves antivaccination, but are sceptical towards vaccines and especially point out the side effects. Most do not vaccinate in their practices and some do only occasionally. Their vaccine-hesitant views are often fostered through respective online communities of vaccine-hesitant HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies on a connection between complementary medicine and vaccine-hesitant views of HCWs are needed. Education about vaccines and infectious diseases among healthworkers must increase especially tailored towards the use of internet and social media. Physicians should be made aware that through time and empathy towards their patients they could have a positive impact on undecided patients and parents regarding vaccine decisions.

Understanding and explaining the link between anthroposophy and vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Due to low vaccination uptake and measles outbreaks across Europe, public health authorities have paid increasing attention to anthroposophic communities. Public media outlets have further described these communities as vaccine refusers or "anti-vaxxers". The aim of this review was to understand the scope of the problem and explore assumptions about vaccination beliefs in anthroposophic communities. For the purpose of this review, we define anthroposophic communities as people following some/certain views more or less loosely connected to the philosophies of anthroposophy. The systematic review addresses three research questions and (1) collates evidence documenting outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities, (2) literature on vaccination coverage in anthroposophic communities, and (3) lastly describes literature that summarizes theories and factors influencing vaccine decision-making in anthroposophic communities.

METHODS

This is a systematic review using the following databases: Medline, Web of Science, Psycinfo, and CINAHL. Double-blinded article screening was conducted by two researchers. Data was summarized to address the research questions. For the qualitative research question the data was analysed using thematic analysis with the assistance of Nvivo12.0.

RESULTS

There were 12 articles documenting 18 measles outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities between the years 2000 and 2012. Seven articles describe lower vaccination uptake in anthroposophic communities than in other communities, although one article describes that vaccination coverage in low-income communities with a migrant background was lower than in the anthroposophic community they studied. We found eight articles examining factors and theories influencing vaccine decision making in anthroposophic communities. The qualitative analysis revealed four common themes. Firstly, there was a very broad spectrum of vaccine beliefs among the anthroposophic communities. Secondly, there was a consistent narrative about problems or concerns with vaccines, including toxicity and lack of trust in the system. Thirdly, there was a strong notion of the importance of making individual and well-informed choices as opposed to simply following the masses. Lastly, making vaccine choices different from public health guidelines was highly stigmatized by those outside of the anthroposophic community but also those within the community.

CONCLUSION

Continuing to further knowledge of vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities is particularly important in view of increasing measles rates and potential sudden reliance on vaccines for emerging diseases. However, popular assumptions about vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities are challenged by the data presented in this systematic review.

Recruiting a Hard-to-Reach, Hidden and Vulnerable Population: The Methodological and Practical Pitfalls of Researching Vaccine-Hesitant Parents

While recruitment is an essential aspect of any research project, its challenges are rarely acknowledged. We intend to address this gap by discussing the challenges to the participation of vaccine-hesitant parents defined here as a hard-to-reach, hidden and vulnerable population drawing on extensive empirical qualitative evidence from seven European countries. The difficulties in reaching vaccine-hesitant parents were very much related to issues concerning trust, as there appears to be a growing distrust in experts, which is extended to the work developed by researchers and their funding bodies. These difficulties have been accentuated by the public debate around COVID-19 vaccination, as it seems to have increased parents' hesitancy to participate. Findings from recruiting 167 vaccine-hesitant parents in seven European countries suggest that reflexive and sensible recruitment approaches should be developed.

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

Exploring nurses' experiences of a tailored intervention to increase MMR vaccine acceptance in a Somali community in Stockholm, Sweden: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

To explore nurses' experiences of a tailored intervention that supported them with knowledge and tools to use during encounters and dialogue with parents with low vaccine acceptance.

DESIGN

A qualitative study with in-depth interviews conducted in 2017. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

This study was part of a multicomponent intervention targeting Somali parents and the nurses at child health centres in the Rinkeby and Tensta neighbourhoods of Stockholm. An area with documented low measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage. Previous research has revealed that Somali parents in the community delayed MMR vaccination due to fear of autism despite lack of scientific evidence. The interventions were implemented in 2015-2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven nurses employed at the child health centres involved in the intervention participated in interviews. The tailored intervention targeting nurses included a series of seminars, a narrative film and an information card with key messages for distribution to parents.

RESULTS

The qualitative analysis revealed an overarching theme: perception of improved communication with parents. Two underlying themes were identified: (1) feeling more confident to address parents' MMR vaccine concerns and (2) diverse tools as useful support to dispel myth and reduce language barriers.

CONCLUSION

From the nurses' perspective, the tailored intervention was useful to improve communication with parents having vaccine concerns. Nurses have a crucial role in vaccine uptake and acceptance. Interventions aiming to strengthen their communication with parents are therefore essential, especially in areas with lower vaccine acceptance.

Design and implementation of tailored intervention to increase vaccine acceptance in a Somali community in Stockholm, Sweden - based on the Tailoring Immunization Programmes approach

Objectives

Sweden has had a high and stable vaccination coverage for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine (>96%) through the national immunization program (NIP), but coverage rates highlight local pockets of lower vaccination coverage. This project addressed low MMR vaccine acceptance among parents in a Somali community, in Stockholm. The objective of the intervention was to increase vaccine confidence and MMR-vaccine uptake and also to inform practices addressing vaccine acceptance.

Study design

This paper describes the design and implementation of a multi-component intervention based on the Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) approach, developed by the WHO European Regional Office.

Methods

The theoretical underpinning of TIP is the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B model) and Behaviour Change Wheel framework (BCW), adapted for vaccination. The COM-model was used to identify barriers and drivers to vaccination and intervention types. The TIP-phases described in this paper are: pre-TIP (planning), three succeeding TIP phases (situational analysis, formative research, intervention design) and the post-TIP phase (implementation).

Results

The situation analysis and formative research revealed that parents feared the MMR vaccine due to autism or that their child would stop talking following vaccination, despite lack of scientific evidence for an association between autism and MMR vaccines. Barriers were linked to their associated COM-B factors and mapped to appropriate intervention types for two target groups: Somali parents and nurses at the Child Health Centres (CHC). Selected intervention types targeting parents were education, persuasion and modelling whereas education and training were selected for CHC nurses. The intervention activities included community engagement for parents, while the activities for nurses focused on improving encounters and dialogue with parents having low vaccine acceptance. Following the intervention design the activities were developed, pilot tested and implemented.

Conclusion

This study confirm that the TIP approach is valuable for guiding a stepwise working process for a thorough understanding of barriers and drivers for MMR vaccination among parents in this Somali community. It facilitated the design of a theory and evidence-informed intervention targeting parents and nurses.

Variations in vaccination uptake: COVID-19 vaccination rates in Swedish municipalities

Facing the threat of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines are important for limiting the spread and consequences of the pandemic. In this study, we provide a descriptive overview of the within-country variations of vaccine rates by examining to what extent voter turnout, support for an anti-establishment political party (Sweden Democrats), presence of first-generation immigrants, and Evangelical religiosity are associated with the within-country variation in vaccine uptake rates. We use official register data for municipality-level vaccine rates and municipality-level regressions with regional fixed effects. Our analyses show that vaccine uptake, on average, is lower in municipalities where the anti-establishment political party Sweden Democrats has higher vote shares and where a larger share of the population is first-generation immigrants. We discuss that potential explanations for these associations between vote shares for an anti-establishment party and shares of first-generation immigrants could be lower levels of trust in institutions and language barriers.

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.

A qualitative interview study with parents to identify barriers and drivers to childhood vaccination and inform public health interventions

Vaccination coverage in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been declining since 2014. This qualitative study aimed to identify barriers and drivers to childhood vaccination for parents. The COM-B (capability-opportunity-motivation-behavior) model was the underpinning theoretical framework. Face-to-face interviews with 22 parents of fully (n = 6), delayed/partially vaccinated (n = 9) and unvaccinated (n = 7) children were conducted. Interviews explored individual factors (capability-knowledge and skills; motivation-attitudes, confidence and trust) and context factors (physical opportunity-information, access, health systems; and social opportunity - social support, norms). Data were analyzed in NVivo using content analysis exploring differences in COM factors by vaccination status and location. Parents of fully vaccinated children typically reported individual and context drivers to vaccination. They accepted vaccination, trusted health workers, and were content with services. Parents of delayed/partially vaccinated children fell into two subgroups: (1) Those who accepted vaccination and attributed delays to their organizational skills or frustration with appointment times. (2) Those fitting the profile of "vaccine hesitant" - generally valuing vaccination and health worker advice, yet with concerns often triggered by media/social media. Parents of unvaccinated children mentioned individual and context barriers to vaccination, notably significant concerns about safety, some distrust of health workers and resentment of mandatory vaccination. Urban/rural differences included urban parents being more likely to report experiences with vaccine shortages and very few had received information leaflets. The study identified complex and inter-related barriers and drivers to parents' childhood vaccination behaviors. These insights have informed the development of tailored interventions to improve coverage.

Understanding vaccination communication between health workers and parents: a Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) qualitative study in Serbia

Vaccine communication between health workers and parents affects parental acceptance, so understanding this is particularly important when vaccination rates drop. This paper presents the findings of a qualitative research study conducted in Serbia as part of a Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) project. The aims were to explore the process of vaccination communication between health workers and parents (accepting, indecisive, delaying, refusing), and identify barriers and drivers to effective communication. In-depth interviews with 14 health workers were supplemented and qualified by observations of 40 consultations, using thematic analysis. Study sites were two community health centers in two Belgrade municipalities where a significant drop in childhood vaccination rates had occurred. Key findings were: (1) communication mainly took place between pediatricians and parents, while nurses focused on administering vaccines. (2) Health workers were confident in their skills to communicate and address concerns of accepting and indecisive parents, successfully applying specific strategies. (3) When interacting with delaying and refusing parents, they sometimes agreed to delay vaccination to maintain relationships, confident that most parents would vaccinate in due course. (4) Some refusing parents asked questions grounded in a socio-political agenda regarding vaccines or vaccination. Such questions exceeded the domain of health workers' expertise, which affected the communication between them. (5) Health workers' behavior in consultations was sometimes affected by parents' (dis) trust in their recommendations about vaccination. The study revealed that health workers in Serbia require additional skills and techniques to respond to parents who refuse and wish to delay vaccination, to secure timely vaccination.

Why do parents refuse childhood vaccination? Reasons reported in Finland

AIMS

This article examines the reasons for partial and complete refusal of childhood vaccination as reported by parents in Finland. It analyzes perceptions and experiences central in vaccination decisions.

METHODS

The analysis is based on 38 in-depth interviews with Finnish parents who have refused all or several vaccines for their children. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Three categories of reasons were identified in the analysis: 1) risks and effects of vaccination - concern about and/or experiences of possible side-effects was the most important reason for avoiding vaccines; 2) distrust - participants did not trust vaccination recommendations made by health officials and medical professionals due to perceived bias in medical research, ties between health officials and the pharmaceutical industry, and personal experiences of (suspected) adverse effects and the way these concerns were received in healthcare institutions; 3) health perceptions and practices - parents supported their vaccination choices with complementary and alternative medicine treatments and alternative health understandings. Many stated that contracting vaccine-preventable illnesses would provide longer lasting and more 'natural' immunity than vaccination, and possibly other health benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

A loss of trust in medical and public health actors was central to the process in which parents came to question, contest, and eventually refuse childhood vaccination. The adverse effects of the Pandemrix vaccine in 2009-2010 have been important in leading to distrust and contestation. Distrust may relate to personal experiences of (suspected) adverse effects or to broader concerns over the neutrality of health authorities and the trustworthiness of medical research.

Resurgence of Measles in Europe: A Systematic Review on Parental Attitudes and Beliefs of Measles Vaccine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Europe has experienced a major resurgence of measles in recent years, despite the availability and free access to a safe, effective, and affordable vaccination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR). The main driver for this is suboptimal vaccine coverage. The three objectives of this study are to synthesize and critically assess parental attitudes and beliefs toward MMR uptake, to develop strategies and policy recommendations to effectively improve MMR vaccine uptake accordingly, and ultimately to identify areas for further research.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using primary studies from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus published between 2011 and April 2019. Inclusion criteria comprised primary studies in English conducted in Europe and studying parental attitudes and behavior regarding MMR uptake. Data were extracted using an inductive grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

In all, 20 high-quality studies were identified. Vaccine hesitancy or refusal were mainly due to concerns about vaccine safety, effectiveness, perception of measles risk and burden, mistrust in experts, and accessibility. Factors for MMR uptake included a sense of responsibility toward child and community health, peer judgement, trust in experts and vaccine, and measles severity. Anthroposophical and Gypsy, Roma, and Traveler populations presented unique barriers such as accessibility.

CONCLUSION

A multi-interventional, evidence-based approach is vital to improve confidence, competence, and convenience of measles vaccination uptake. Healthcare professionals need an understanding of individual contextual attitudes and barriers to MMR uptake to tailor effective communication. Effective surveillance is needed to identify under-vaccinated populations for vaccination outreach programs to improve accessibility and uptake.

"Following Your Gut" or "Questioning the Scientific Evidence": Understanding Vaccine Skepticism among More-Educated Dutch Parents

This study aims to understand vaccine skepticism among a population where it is remarkably prevalent-more-educated Dutch parents-through 31 in-depth interviews. Whereas all respondents ascribe a central role to the individual in obtaining knowledge (i.e., individualist epistemology), this is expressed in two repertoires. A neoromantic one focuses on deriving truth through intuition and following a "natural" path and informs a risk typology: embracing (refusing) "natural" ("unnatural") risks such as "childhood diseases" ("pharmaceutical substances"). A critical-reflexive repertoire centers on scientific methods but is skeptical about the scientific consensus and informs a risk calculation: opting for the choice perceived to bear the smallest risk. Thus, the same vaccine can be rejected because of its perceived harm to natural processes (neoromantic repertoire) or because its scientific basis is deemed insufficient (critical-reflexive repertoire). Moreover, these opposing repertoires are likely to inspire different responses to the same health-related information.

Decision-making on maternal pertussis vaccination among women in a vaccine-hesitant religious group: Stages and needs

INTRODUCTION

As of December 2019, pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered pertussis vaccination to protect their newborn infant against pertussis infection. However, the manner in which pregnant women decide about this maternal pertussis vaccination is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the decision-making process regarding maternal pertussis vaccination, and to explore the related needs among the vaccine-hesitant subgroup of orthodox Protestant women.

METHODS

Charmaz's grounded theory approach was used to develop a decision-making framework. To construct this framework we used an explorative multimethod approach in which in-depth interviews and online focus groups were supplemented by a literature search and research group meetings. This study was carried out in a hypothetical situation since the maternal pertussis vaccination had yet to be implemented in the Dutch immunisation programme at the time of the study.

RESULTS

Twenty-five orthodox Protestant women participated in an interview, an online focus group, or in both. The findings of this study resulted in a decision-making framework that included three stages of decision-making; an Orientation stage, a value-based Deliberation stage, and Final decision stage. The Orientation stage included the needs for decision-making categorised into Information needs and Conversation needs. Women indicated that -if they were to receive sufficient time for Orientation and Deliberation- they would be able to reach the stage of Final decision.

CONCLUSION

The decision-making framework resulting from our findings can be used by health care professionals to provide women with information and consultation in the decision-making process. Future studies should investigate whether the stages of and needs for decision-making can be found across other vaccine-hesitant subgroups and vaccinations.

Parental attitudes and decisions regarding MMR vaccination during an outbreak of measles among an undervaccinated Somali community in Minnesota

Incidence of measles is increasing in the US, largely due to transmission among growing unvaccinated communities. To elucidate predictors of parental decision to obtain measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine for unvaccinated children during a measles outbreak, we surveyed families among a vaccine-hesitant Somali community in Minnesota. The survey assessed attitudes and beliefs about MMR vaccine, motivators for vaccinating, and intention to vaccinate future children on time. Among 300 families surveyed, 95% vaccinated their child with MMR due to fear of measles. The predominating parental concern about MMR vaccine (71%) was a fallacious presumed connection between vaccination and autism. Only 41% of parents intended to vaccinate future children on time with MMR; parents who received recommendations for MMR vaccination from multiple sources were more likely than other parents to intend to do so. These findings support the importance of diverse outreach efforts to increase vaccine coverage among undervaccinated communities.

A meta-synthesis study of the key elements involved in childhood vaccine hesitancy

OBJECTIVES

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions to improve health outcomes. However, internationally, the phenomenon of parental vaccine hesitancy is increasing and presents a growing challenge for health professionals. This article summarizes the evidence surrounding childhood vaccine hesitancy from the perspective of parents.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

METHODS

We searched for qualitative research articles in electronic databases from inception to March 2018. In addition, a manual search of the retrieved articles and their references was conducted to identify other potential articles. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme to examine study validity, adequacy and potential applicability of the results. No articles were excluded for reasons of quality. By performing a meta-synthesis, we identified descriptive themes and, subsequently, the conceptual elements of vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

The review included 27 studies involving a total of 1557 parents who were hesitant about vaccinating their child. Five overarching categories were identified: (1) risk conceptualization; (2) mistrust towards vaccine-related institutions, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, health professionals and the information from media; (3) parental alternative health beliefs about childhood immunity, vaccine scheduling and the perceived toxicity of vaccinations; (4) philosophical views on parental responsibility; and (5) parents' information levels about vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare providers need to approach this difficult situation considering that parents desire to do what they feel right for the child. Understanding the core elements of hesitancy will allow health professionals to adopt effective communication and behavioural strategies.

Exploring parents' reasons for incomplete childhood immunisation in Indonesia

INTRODUCTION

Immunisation is one of the most successful interventions for controlling infectious diseases but relies on continuous high coverage. Parental vaccine refusal and logistical barriers to access are threats to the success of immunisation programs, with resultant population immunity gaps leading to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. In Indonesia, coverage of childhood vaccines is suboptimal, with poor coverage of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine leading to a large diphtheria outbreak in 2017.

METHODS

To explore the underlying parents' reasons for incomplete childhood immunisation in Indonesia, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Tangerang Selatan, Banten Province, Indonesia. Sixteen purposively selected primary carers of partially and unimmunised children were interviewed. Transcripts were coded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Parental reasons were categorised into three interrelated themes of belief barriers, safety concerns, and issues of trust and misinformation. Stark differences were evident in reasons provided by carers of unimmunised children compared to partially immunised children. For parents of unimmunised children, Islamic beliefs, belief in the strength of natural immunity, and the use of alternative medicines strongly influenced behaviours. Safety concerns, issues of trust including distrust in the government, misinformation, and trust in information obtained through social networks were also prominent. In contrast, concerns about mild side-effects and logistical barriers outweighed beliefs among carers of partially immunised children.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the complexities in decision making for parents who decide not to vaccinate their children. In the Indonesian context, public health education and engagement of religious leaders to bridge the gap between religious beliefs and vaccine acceptance are needed to address vaccine refusal. Future research on the influence of social networks on vaccine hesitancy in the Indonesian context is also warranted. For parents of partially vaccinated children, interventions should focus on barriers of access to community health staff to encourage timely schedule completion.

CIOMS Guide To Vaccine Safety Communication - Executive summary

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) issued their Guide to Vaccine Safety Communication. This has been built upon existing guidance and a new review of research and compilation of latest experiences, in order to fill, for the first time at global level, a specific niche for regulatory authorities in the contexts of vaccine hesitancy and informed choice. The Guide was developed by the international multi-stakeholder CIOMS Working Group on Vaccine Safety, formed to assist the Global Vaccine Safety Initiative (GVSI) of the World Health Organization (WHO).

SUMMARY

Besides the public health authorities responsible for immunization programmes, regulators have their own role in communicating about vaccine safety. As they are responsible for licensing vaccine products, they need to be transparent about their assessments of data on quality, safety and efficacy. Furthermore, they are responsible for continuous safety surveillance and keeping safe use advice to the public up-to-date. The Guide stresses the fundamental importance of regulatory bodies to have a system in place with defined functions and skilled persons who can efficiently run vaccine safety communication in collaboration with stakeholders. This system should take a strategic approach to communication, be integral to safety surveillance and risk assessment, and support vaccine safety communication plans (VacSCPs) adapted to vaccine types in local situations. The Guide provides recommendations and examples for the system components as well as a practical VacSCP template.

CONCLUSIONS

While the Guide should help strengthening regulatory bodies worldwide with regard to vaccine safety communication, it is meant to help regulators in resource-limited countries in particular. It can also be of interest to other stakeholders and be leveraged to other medicinal products.

Perspectives on the Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccination among Somali Mothers in Stockholm

Background: Vaccination hesitancy and skepticism among parents hinders progress in achieving full vaccination coverage. Swedish measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine coverage is high however some areas with low vaccination coverage risk outbreaks. This study aimed to explore factors influencing the decision of Somali parents living in the Rinkeby and Tensta districts of Stockholm, Sweden, on whether or not to vaccinate their children with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Method: Participants were 13 mothers of at least one child aged 18 months to 5 years, who were recruited using snowball sampling. In-depth interviews were conducted in Somali and Swedish languages and the data generated was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Both written and verbal informed consent were obtained from participants. Results: Seven of the mothers had not vaccinated their youngest child at the time of the study and decided to postpone the vaccination until their child became older (delayers). The other six mothers had vaccinated their child for MMR at the appointed time (timely vaccinators). The analysis of the data revealed two main themes: (1) barriers to vaccinate on time, included issues surrounding fear of the child not speaking and unpleasant encounters with nurses and (2) facilitating factors to vaccinate on time, included heeding vaccinating parents’ advice, trust in nurses and trust in God. The mothers who had vaccinated their children had a positive impact in influencing other mothers to also vaccinate. Conclusions: Fear, based on the perceived risk that vaccination will lead to autism, among Somali mothers in Tensta and Rinkeby is evident and influenced by the opinions of friends and relatives. Child Healthcare Center nurses are important in the decision-making process regarding acceptance of MMR vaccination. There is a need to address mothers’ concerns regarding vaccine safety while improving the approach of nurses as they address these concerns.

The WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) approach: Review of implementation to date

INTRODUCTION

The WHO Regional Office for Europe developed the Guide to tailoring immunization programmes (TIP), offering countries a process through which to diagnose barriers and motivators to vaccination in susceptible low vaccination coverage and design tailored interventions. A review of TIP implementation was conducted in the European Region.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The review was conducted during June to December 2016 by an external review committee and was based on visits in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Sweden and the United Kingdom that had conducted a TIP project; review of national and regional TIP documents and an online survey of the Member States in the WHO European Region that had not conducted a TIP project. A review committee workshop was held to formulate conclusions and recommendations.

RESULTS

The review found the most commonly cited strengths of the TIP approach to be the social science research as well as the interdisciplinary approach and community engagement, enhancing the ability of programmes to "listen" and learn, to gain an understanding of community and individual perspectives. National immunization managers in the Region are generally aware that TIP exists and that there is strong demand for the type of research it addresses. Further work is needed to assist countries move towards implementable strategies based on the TIP findings, supported by an emphasis on enhanced local ownership; integrated diagnostic and intervention design; and follow-up meetings, advocacy and incentives for decision-makers to implement and invest in strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the perspectives of susceptible and low-coverage populations is crucial to improving immunization programmes. TIP provides a framework that facilitated this in four countries. In the future, the purpose of TIP should go beyond identification of susceptible groups and diagnosis of challenges and ensure a stronger focus on the design of strategies and appropriate and effective interventions to ensure long-term change.

The evolution of immunization waiver education in Michigan: A qualitative study of vaccine educators

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Michigan implemented an education requirement for parents who requested nonmedical exemptions from school or daycare immunization mandates. Michigan required parents to receive education from public health staff, unlike other states, whose vaccine education requirements could be completed online or at physicians' offices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Results of focus group interviews with 39 of Michigan's vaccine waiver educators, conducted during 2016 and 2017, were analyzed to identify themes describing educators' experiences of waiver education. The core theme that emerged from the data was that educators changed their perception of the purpose of waiver education, from convincing vaccine-refusing parents to vaccinate their children to promoting more diffuse and forward-looking goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Michigan, and other communities that require vaccine waiver education, ought to investigate whether and how waiver education contributes to public health goals other than short-term vaccination compliance. Research shows that education requirements can decrease nonmedical exemption rates by discouraging some parents from applying for exemptions, but further studies are needed to identify ways in which waiver education can promote other public health goals, while minimizing costs and burdens on staff.

Childhood vaccine status and correlation with common nonvaccine-preventable illnesses

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Current trends in parental decision making involve alteration from vaccine schedules in children, citing concerns for altered immune function. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in incidence of common childhood illnesses dependent on vaccination status.

METHODS

An investigator-designed survey was administered to parents of children aged 12 months to 7 years. Participants were separated into one of three groups: fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated. There were 111 total participants. Power analysis indicated a minimum of 30 participants per group to detect an 80% effect. Descriptive statistics were applied to variables with chi-square for group comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated a statistically significant difference between all three groups in the categories of ear infections, influenza, and common colds. Fully immunized group had significantly more ear infections than partial or unimmunized. The unimmunized group had significantly more colds and flu.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurse practitioner practice implications relate directly to further education of parents, support, and trust building. Many parents question the possible association between childhood vaccines and immune function and have a distrust of current research. This study showed that most common childhood illnesses are equitable across the population and not dependent on vaccine status.

Lessons learnt to keep Europe polio-free: a review of outbreaks in the European Union, European Economic Area, and candidate countries, 1973 to 2013

Between 1973 and 2013, 12 outbreaks of paralytic poliomyelitis with a cumulative total of 660 cases were reported in the European Union, European Economic Area and candidate countries. Outbreaks lasted seven to 90 weeks (median: 24 weeks) and were identified through the diagnosis of cases of acute flaccid paralysis, for which infection with wild poliovirus was subsequently identified. In two countries, environmental surveillance was in place before the outbreaks, but did not detect any wild strain before the occurrence of clinical cases. This surveillance nonetheless provided useful information to monitor the outbreaks and their geographical spread. Outbreaks were predominantly caused by poliovirus type 1 and typically involved unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated groups within highly immunised communities. Oral polio vaccine was primarily used to respond to the outbreaks with catch-up campaigns implemented either nationwide or in restricted geographical areas or age groups. The introduction of supplementary immunisation contained the outbreaks. In 2002, the European region of the World Health Organization was declared polio-free and it has maintained this status since. However, as long as there are non-vaccinated or under-vaccinated groups in European countries and poliomyelitis is not eradicated, countries remain continuously at risk of reintroduction and establishment of the virus. Continued efforts to reach these groups are needed in order to ensure a uniform and high vaccination coverage.

Addressing issues of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination decision-making: a qualitative study

Background

Whether or not to vaccinate one’s child is one of the first health-related decisions parents have to make after their child’s birth. For the past 20 years, the share of parents choosing not to immunize their children has increased in many countries, for various reasons. Among these, rumors affirming that vaccinations contain dangerous chemicals or might trigger severe chronic diseases have negatively affected parental attitudes towards pediatric immunizations, particularly the vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), raising a number of public health concerns. The primary aim of this qualitative study is to understand what drives parents’ decision, giving special attention to vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in such a context.

Methods

Twenty individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland) between January and June 2014. Participants were either mothers or fathers of children less than 1 year old living in Switzerland. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify the main themes with regard to vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the MMR vaccination decision-making.

Results

Parents’ reports yielded four main themes: (a) the paradox of the free choice, referring to the misinterpretation of current vaccination policies; (b) giving up the power, pointing at the outcomes of a low perceived competence; (c) a far-reaching decision, reflecting the importance attributed to the MMR choice and the different levels of impact the decision can have; (d) the demand for shared-decision making, referring to the parental needs in relation to the child’s healthcare provider.

Conclusion

Understanding what drives parents’ management of their children’s immunization schedule in terms of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment can help health professionals to communicate more effectively with parents in order to facilitate an informed decision, and stakeholders to design tailored health education programs and materials. This can ultimately help increase the coverage of the MMR vaccination.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2200-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Diagnosing the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in specific subgroups: The Guide to Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP)

Despite relatively high vaccination coverage rates in the European Region, vaccine hesitancy is undermining individual and community protection from vaccine preventable diseases. At the request of its European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (ETAGE), the Vaccine-preventable Diseases and Immunization Programme of the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/EURO) developed tools to help countries address hesitancy more effectively. The Guide to Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP), an evidence and theory based behavioral insight framework, issued in 2013, provides tools to (1) identify vaccine hesitant population subgroups, (2) diagnose their demand- and supply-side immunization barriers and enablers and (3) design evidence-informed responses to hesitancy appropriate to the subgroup setting, context and vaccine. The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) through its Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy has closely followed the development, implementation, use and evolution of TIP concluding that TIP, with local adaptation, could be a valuable tool for use in all WHO regions, to help address countries' vaccine hesitancy problems. The TIP principles are applicable to communicable, noncommunicable and emergency planning where behavioral decisions influence outcomes.