Assessing the impact of shared decision making processes on influenza vaccination rates in adult patients in outpatient care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

To review the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review and searched systematic reviews on SDM from PubMed, CINHAL, and Web of Science. We included reviews on SDM interventions used in a health care setting with patients. We assessed the eligibility of retrieved articles and evaluated whether the review addressed Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) characteristics.

RESULTS

Out of 3678 records, 48 reviews were included. Half of the reviews focused exclusively on RCT studies (n = 21). A little less than half were focused specifically on decision aids (n = 23). Thirty-two reviews discussed CFIR characteristics explicitly or implicitly; the majority of which were specific to intervention characteristics. Reviews tended to cluster around patient populations and tended to be low or critically low to moderate in their quality. Reviews of SDM on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time were highly uncertain but often ranged from neutral to positive.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that SDM implementation did not typically increase costs or increase consultation time while having some neutral to positive benefits on outcomes and quality for certain populations. Gaps in knowledge remain including better research on the climate where SDM is most effective.

[Vaccine hesitancy in postpandemic times-A guide for physicians]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasized the importance of vaccinations for the prevention of life-threatening diseases and for avoiding the overburdening of the healthcare system. Despite the clear advantage of vaccinations, increasing vaccine hesitancy has been observed worldwide, especially among young people who are potential future parents. Vaccine hesitancy describes the delayed or lack of willingness to utilize recommended vaccinations and represents a substantial challenge for public health. This article analyzes the causes of vaccine hesitancy in the postpandemic period and discusses factors that could make communication successful. The role of artificial intelligence and structured evidence-based discussion techniques, such as the empathetic refutation interview, are emphasized. The aim is to provide practice-oriented recommendations to be able to provide physicians with tools that can help in the education counselling with insecure patients and can promote the acceptance of vaccinations.

Depression and vaccination behavior in patients with chronic physical illness - A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

Chronically ill are vulnerable to vaccine preventable infections. Consequently, their vaccination behavior is highly relevant. Depressive comorbidities are frequent in these patients. Furthermore, these patients are mainly diagnosed, treated and vaccinated in primary care. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the associations between depression and vaccination behavior (COVID-19 and influenza) in adult chronically ill primary care patients.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey, we examined depression (PHQ9), psychological antecedents of vaccinations (Confidence and Constraints), health care utilization, and vaccination status. Based on an effect model, descriptive statistics and mixed linear/logistic models were calculated. (German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00030042).

RESULTS

n = 795 patients were analyzed. Both psychological antecedents of vaccinations (Confidence and Constraints) mediated a negative association between depression and vaccination behavior, healthcare utilization mediated a positive association. The total effect of depression was negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

As the effects of vaccination readiness and healthcare utilization are opposing, different total effects depending on the study population are possible. Further studies are needed to investigate additional predictors of vaccination behavior.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We suggest tackling vaccine acceptance in chronically ill through increasing confidence using communication-based interventions, for which primary care is the suitable setting. Constraints might be reduced by reminder and recall systems.

Associations of mental health with vaccination readiness in informal caregivers and the vaccination status of their care recipients during the Covid-19 pandemic - A cross sectional analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vaccinations are important for informal caregivers and their care recipients. Mental health problems are common among care givers. The aim of this study was to investigate vaccination readiness in informal caregivers and associations with mental health issues. Associations between vaccination readiness in informal caregivers and the vaccination status of their aged care recipients were examined.

METHODS

Within the multicenter prospective registry study 'Bavarian ambulatory Covid-19 Monitor (BaCoM) ', informal caregivers were asked for symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), burden of caretaking (BSFC-s), psychological antecedents of vaccination readiness (5C model) and previous Covid-19 infections of their care recipients. The vaccination status against Covid-19, seasonal influenza and pneumococcal disease was determined via vaccination certificates. Data analysis was performed using ordinal regressions and Mann-Whitney-U tests.

RESULTS

Data of n = 91 informal caregivers, associated with n = 84 care recipients were collected. Symptoms of depression were associated with reduced vaccination readiness (Calculation: p = 0.026, OR = 1.18), as well as the perceived burden of caretaking (Confidence: p = 0.006, OR = 0.88). A previous Covid-19 infection of the care recipients was associated with decreased vaccination readiness of informal caregivers (Median (Q1-Q3) Confidence: 5.0 (4.5-6.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0-5.0); Calculation: 5.0 (3.0-6.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0-5.0)). The vaccination status of the care recipients interrelated significantly with vaccination readiness of their informal caregivers (Confidence: p < 0.001; Complacency: p < 0.01; Constraints p < 0.05). No significant interrelations between vaccination readiness and the vaccination status against seasonal influenza or pneumococcal disease occurred.

CONCLUSION

Mental health issues of informal caregivers seem to be associated with the actual vaccination status against Covid-19 in their care recipients. Target group specific counselling as well as an active involvement of informal caregivers in shared decision-making processes can be of relevance, but even more attention should be paid to the protection of mental health for informal caregivers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Register of Clinical Studies DRKS 26039.

A quick access to information on influenza burden and prevention in Lyon university hospital: A prospective QR code-based information campaign in 2022-2023

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccines are effective in decreasing hospitalizations and mortality related to influenza and its complications. However, the Vaccine Coverage Rate of influenza remains low and multifaceted efforts are required to improve it. The aim of this study was to assess the impact on influenza vaccine perception using a digital tool among outpatients and health care workers (HCWs).

METHODS

A study was performed among outpatients and the HCWs of 23 hospital departments from 4 hospitals affiliated to Lyon university Hospitals (France), between October 2022 and February 2023. By scanning QR (Quick Response) codes, displayed on posters for patients, their companions, as well as in the letters sent to HCWs, users accessed anonymously to a web-application (ELEFIGHT®), which provided information on influenza and invited them to initiate a discussion on influenza prevention with their physicians during the consultation. Patients were also invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their perception of influenza vaccination before and after reading the information on ELEFIGHT®. The retention rate (RR = proportion of people who remain on the page for >2 s), the conversion rate (CR = proportion of people who click on the "Call-To-Action" button) and the absolute variation (difference in the perception before/after) and relative variation (absolute change as a percentage of the initial perception) in perception regarding influenza vaccination before and after consulting the application were calculated.

RESULTS

3791 scans were performed by 3298 patients and/or their companions with a RR of 52% and a CR of 55.1% and 253 scans by 221 HCWs with a RR of 71.2% and a CR of 115.3%. Participants spent an average of 47 s on the application. The questionnaire on influenza vaccination perception was completed by 1533 participants (46.5%); 1390 (90.7%) maintained the same position (neutral, favorable or unfavorable) on this vaccination before and after consulting the application. The relative variations in favor of vaccination were + 7.2% (unfavorable then favorable) and + 19.8% (neutral then favorable).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that a facilitated direct access to medical information through QR codes disseminated in health settings can help nudge people to foster their awareness of influenza and its prevention. Future deployments in a similar context or to other populations could be envisaged. Other vaccine-preventable and/or chronic diseases could also be the target of similar projects as part of public health programs.

Shared decision-making endorses intention to follow through treatment or vaccination recommendations: a multi-method survey study among older adults

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that shared decision-making (SDM) between a practitioner and a patient strengthens the ideal of treatment adherence. This study employed a multi-method approach to SDM in healthcare to reinforce the theoretical and methodological grounds of this argument. As the study design, self-reported survey items and experimental vignettes were combined in one electronic questionnaire. This technique aimed to analyze the effects of previous experiences and the current preferences regarding SDM on the intentions to follow-through with the medical recommendations.

METHOD

Using quantitative data collected from the members of the Finnish Pensioners' Federation (N = 1610), this study focused on the important and growing population of older adults as healthcare consumers. Illustrated vignettes were used in the evaluation of expected adherence to both vaccination and the treatment of an illness, depending on the decision-making style varying among the repeated scenarios. In a within-subjects study design, each study subject acted as their own control.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrated that SDM correlates with expected adherence to a treatment and vaccination. Both the retrospective experiences and prospective aspirations of SDM in clinical encounters supported the patients' expected adherence to vaccination and treatment while decreasing the probability of pseudo-compliance. The association between SDM and expected adherence was not affected by the perceived health of the respondents. However, the associations among the expected adherence and decision-making styles were found to differ between the treatment and vaccination scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM enables expected treatment adherence among older adults. Thus, the multi-method study emphasizes the importance of SDM in various healthcare encounters. The findings further imply that SDM research benefits from questionnaires combining self-report methods and experimental study designs. Further cross-validation studies using various types of written and illustrated scenarios are encouraged.

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

Modification of the Public Attitude Towards Vaccination Scale for use in adult vaccines

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is a crucial protective intervention to prevent adult mortality and morbidity. Personal perceptions and resources have an important place in the vaccination decision.

AIM

This study aimed to modify the Public Attitude Towards Vaccination-Health Belief Model scale for adult vaccines and evaluate its psychometric properties.

METHODS

Overall, 626 people participated in this methodological study. Content validity index, confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency and item-total score correlation were used for validity and reliability. The independent samples t test, logistic regression analysis and ROC analysis were used for criterion and concurrent validity.

RESULTS

In confirmatory factor analysis, values of fit indices were excellent or acceptable. The Cronbach alpha value was between 0.83 and 0.92. According to criterion validity, the susceptibility, severity, benefit, and health motivation scores of those with the vaccine were higher than those without, whereas their barrier score was lower. The barrier subscale was a risk factor, whereas the benefit score was a protective factor that increased the likelihood of vaccination. The concurrent validity of the scale was tested with the COVID-19 vaccine. While the barrier subscale's ability to distinguish between vaccinated (specificity) and unvaccinated (sensitivity) individuals is excellent, it is acceptable for the other subscales.

CONCLUSION

Modified PAVS-HBM is valid and reliable for adult vaccines. This scale was associated with vaccination behaviour and distinguished between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy between family decision-makers and non-decision-makers among college teachers

BACKGROUND

Teachers with high educational levels significantly impact the health-related knowledge and attitudes of young students and their family members. This study aimed to investigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy and associated factors, and compare the differences between decision-makers and non-decision-makers among college teachers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered across mainland China from 4 to 7 August 2021. Overall, 251 college teachers were included using snowball sampling. A multivariable logistic regression model was applied to explore the association between decision-makers and hesitancy to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

Overall, 42.2% of the teachers were hesitant to being vaccinated against COVID-19. The hesitancy rate was lower among primary decision-makers than that among non-decision-makers (34.8% vs. 60.3%, p < .001). Primary decision-makers were less hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination than non-decision-makers (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.70); remarkably, whereas those engaged in nursing education versus non-medical related professional education (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.29-5.49), and partial versus full-course vaccination recipients (OR = 4.48, 95% CI: 1.76-11.42) were more likely to be hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that a high proportion of college teachers in China are hesitant to receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and that primary decision-makers are less likely to exhibit hesitancy to being vaccinated against COVID-19 than non-decision-makers in their family. Family decision-makers among teachers can be considered a priority for COVID-19 vaccine promotion, thereby enhancing vaccine acceptance among vulnerable populations-including older adults and children-and preventing adverse outcomes.KEY MESSAGESQuestion: How prevalent is COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among college teachers? Do differences exist between decision-makers and non-decision-makers?Findings: We found that a substantial proportion of college teachers are hesitant to being vaccinated against COVID-19, and that family decision-makers exhibited a lower hesitancy rate than non-decision-makers.Meaning: Our findings indicate that distinguishing between family decision-makers and non-decision-makers is necessary to facilitate vaccination promotion interventions among college teachers.

Psychological Determinants of Vaccination Readiness against COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza of the Chronically Ill in Primary Care in Germany-A Cross-Sectional Survey

Vaccines against COVID-19 and influenza are highly recommended for the chronically ill. They often suffer from co-morbid mental health issues. This cross-sectional observational study analyzes the associations between depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (OASIS) with vaccination readiness (5C) against COVID-19 and influenza in chronically ill adults in primary care in Germany. Sociodemographic data, social activity (LSNS), patient activation measure (PAM), and the doctor/patient relationship (PRA) are examined as well. Descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects regression models are calculated. We compare data from n = 795 study participants. The symptoms of depression are negatively associated with confidence in COVID-19 vaccines (p = 0.010) and positively associated with constraints to get vaccinated against COVID-19 (p = 0.041). There are no significant associations between symptoms of depression and vaccination readiness against influenza. Self-reported symptoms of a generalized anxiety disorder seem not to be associated with vaccination readiness. To address confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among the chronically ill, targeted educational interventions should be elaborated to consider mental health issues like depression. As general practitioners play a key role in the development of a good doctor/patient relationship, they should be trained in patient-centered communication. Furthermore, a standardized implementation of digital vaccination management systems might improve immunization rates in primary care.

Adherence to Vaccines in Adult Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Two-Year Prospective Portuguese Cohort Study

Background: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) treated with immunomodulatory therapy present an increased susceptibility to infections. Vaccination is a crucial element in the management of IMID patients; however, rates remain suboptimal. This study intended to clarify the adherence to prescribed vaccines. Materials and methods: This prospective cohort study included 262 consecutive adults with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatological diseases who underwent an infectious diseases evaluation before initiating or switching immunosuppressive/biological therapy. Vaccine prescription and adherence were assessed during an infectious diseases (ID) consultation using a real-world multidisciplinary clinical project. Results: At baseline, less than 5% had all their vaccines up-to-date. More than 650 vaccines were prescribed to 250 (95.4%) patients. The most prescribed were pneumococcal and influenza vaccines, followed by hepatitis A and B vaccines. Adherence to each of the vaccines ranged from 69.1–87.3%. Complete adherence to vaccines occurred in 151 (60.4%) patients, while 190 (76%) got at least two-thirds of them. Twenty patients (8%) did not adhere to any of the vaccines. No significant differences were found in the adherence rates of patients with different sociodemographic and health-related determinants. Conclusions: ID physicians can play a role in the process of increasing vaccine prescription and adherence. However, more data on patients’ beliefs and vaccine hesitancy, along with mobilization of all health care professionals and adequate local interventions, shall be considered to improve vaccine adherence.

A Voice-Annotated Digital Decision Aid to Promote Child Influenza Vaccination: A Feasibility Study

(1) Background: Child influenza vaccine uptake is suboptimal due partly to vaccine hesitancy. A voice-annotated digital decision aid, Flu Learning Object (FLO), was developed to facilitate parental decision-making. This study assessed parental views on FLO’s usability and utility and determined its preliminary effectiveness in increasing vaccine intention and uptake; (2) Methods: A single-center mixed method study was conducted in a public primary care clinic in Singapore. Parents of children aged 6 months to 5 years who were unvaccinated in the preceding year were recruited. In-depth interviews explored their views of using FLO. Pre- and post-FLO questionnaires assessed their vaccine intention and perceived usability using the System Usability Scale (SUS); (3) Results: 18 parents were recruited. They became more aware of benefits and potential complications, distinguished influenza from the common cold, and recognized recommendations by National Childhood Immunisation Schedule. FLO addressed parents’ concerns and supported their decision-making process. FLO has good usability with a mean SUS score of 79.3, ranked at approximately the 85th percentile. The usage of FLO significantly increased vaccine intention from 55.6% to 94.4% (p = 0.016) with an actual vaccine uptake rate of 50%; (4) Conclusions: Parents generally accepted FLO, which positively influenced their intention to vaccinate their child against influenza.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Administration Trends Among Commercially Insured US Adults Aged 27-45 Years Before and After Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommendation Change, 2007-2020

Importance

In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended patient-clinician shared decision-making for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in adults aged 27 to 45 years. Less is known about the HPV vaccine administration trends in this age group before and after this recommendation update.

Objective

To examine the association between the ACIP recommendation update and the HPV vaccine administration among US adults aged 27 to 45 years.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This large commercial claim-based retrospective cohort study used the Optum Clinformatics database for validated claims from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2020. A total of 22 600 520 US adults aged 27 to 45 years without previous HPV vaccination claims during the study and enrollment period were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The first-appearing HPV vaccination claim per individual was defined as a new HPV vaccine administration. Interrupted time-series analyses were conducted to assess the association between the ACIP update and the quarterly vaccine administration rate change. The annual rate trends across race and ethnicity groups and the proportions of vaccination cases by sub-age groups and valent types were also estimated. Vaccine administration trends were assessed by race and ethnicity in this age group because HPV vaccination trends were found to differ by race and ethnicity in the initially eligible population.

Results

Among 22 600 520 final study participants, the majority were men (50.9%) and non-Hispanic White (53.4%), and the mean (SD) age when first observed was 34.6 (5.8) years. In women, the ACIP update was associated with an immediate increase in vaccine administration rate (coefficient β2, 40.18 per 100 000 persons; P = .01) and an increased slope (coefficient β3, 9.62 per 100 000 persons per quarter; P = .03) over time postupdate. The ACIP update was only associated with an immediate increase in vaccine administration in men (coefficient β2, 27.54; P < .001). The annual rate trends were similar across race and ethnicity groups. Age at vaccine administration shifted over time (eg, women aged 40-45 years comprised only 4.9% of vaccinations in 2017, then 19.0% in 2019, and 22.7% in 2020). The most administered HPV vaccines in 2020 were 9 valent (women, 97.0%; men, 97.7%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study, there were statistically significant increases in HPV vaccine administration in adults aged 27 to 45 years after the ACIP recommendation update. Patient-clinician shared decision-making may have been the main associated factor for this increase. Further research is warranted to explore the decision-making process in receiving HPV vaccination and to develop effective decision aids to maximize the cancer prevention benefit in this age group.

Healthcare professional and professional stakeholders' perspectives on vaccine mandates in Switzerland: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

There currently are no mandatory vaccines in Switzerland. However, Swiss federal legislation allows for vaccination mandates in settings where the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups is high, such as healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with vulnerable patients. Since HCPs are trusted information sources, a priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, and potentially subjected to mandates, we investigated HCP perspectives on mandates.

METHODS

A national online survey was administered to HCPs (October 2020-March 2021), including vaccine mandates questions concerning patients (measles) and HCPs (influenza). We qualitatively investigated HCP mandate perspectives through: (1) 34 interviews with HCPs, HCP professional society representatives, and health authorities; (2) a focus group discussion (FGD) with complementary medicine (CM) and biomedical physicians, and Swiss Federal Vaccination Commission members.

RESULTS

1933 participants (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives) responded to the survey. Quantitative results show all professional groups preferred shared parent-HCP measles vaccine decisions (65%, 54%, 50%, 48%, respectively; p for trend < 0.001). Midwives (87%) and nurses (70%) preferred individual influenza vaccination decisions for HCPs, while physicians (49%) and pharmacists (44%) preferred shared employee-employer decisions (p for trend < 0.001). Physicians (p < .001) and pharmacists (p < .01) with CM training favored individual influenza vaccination decisions. Qualitative results show general HCP opposition to vaccine mandates, mainly because participants argued how other approaches, such as HCP training and better information, could encourage uptake. Arguments against COVID-19 mandates included insufficiently documented long-term safety/efficacy data. From participants' perspectives, mandated vaccination should be used as a last resort. Some participants expressed fear that with mandates, notably for influenza and COVID-19, some HCPs might leave their jobs. HCPs were unsure what vaccine mandates would concretely look like in practice, particularly regarding sanctions for non-compliance and enforcement.

CONCLUSION

In Switzerland, HCPs generally were opposed to vaccination mandates. Clarity and guidance are needed from health authorities to better inform discussions around vaccine mandates.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases: a Brazilian Society of Rheumatology task force

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) to rheumatologists considering specific scenarios of the daily practice based on the shared-making decision (SMD) process.

METHODS

A task force was constituted by 24 rheumatologists (panel members), with clinical and research expertise in immunizations and infectious diseases in immunocompromised patients, endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR), to develop guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMRD. A consensus was built through the Delphi method and involved four rounds of anonymous voting, where five options were used to determine the level of agreement (LOA), based on the Likert Scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree (neutral); (4) agree; and (5) strongly agree. Nineteen questions were addressed and discussed via teleconference to formulate the answers. In order to identify the relevant data on COVID-19 vaccines, a search with standardized descriptors and synonyms was performed on September 10th, 2021, of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS to identify studies of interest. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of nonrandomized studies.

RESULTS

All the nineteen questions-answers (Q&A) were approved by the BSR Task Force with more than 80% of panelists voting options 4-agree-and 5-strongly agree-, and a consensus was reached. These Guidelines were focused in SMD on the most appropriate timing for IMRD patients to get vaccinated to reach the adequate covid-19 vaccination response.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines were developed by a BSR Task Force with a high LOA among panelists, based on the literature review of published studies and expert opinion for COVID-19 vaccination in IMRD patients. Noteworthy, in the pandemic period, up to the time of the review and the consensus process for this document, high-quality evidence was scarce. Thus, it is not a substitute for clinical judgment.

Shared Decision Making - A Key Competence of All Health Care Professionals. Evaluation and Adaptation of a Digitally Enhanced Learning and Teaching Unit

The Covid-19 pandemic induced a radical shift towards digitally enhanced learning and teaching (DELT). Success of this adaptation depended on how much DELT had been provided before. The Bavarian Virtual University (BVU) is a university network to fund, promote and support DELT. The Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich as a part of this network implemented the DELT course “Shared decision making (SDM) - a part of evidence-based medicine” in 2015. Based on regular evaluations and due to the latest developments, a media-didactic and content-related adaptation will be conducted now. Clinical cases will be embedded in a framework structure of SDM. Videos, podcasts and literature of doctor–patient interaction will be provided. To enable different health care professions to have a positive learning experience, the course will be linguistically adapted. The interaction between students and teacher will be enhanced by a transparent distribution of tasks and an issue-specific chat forum. SDM is an interdisciplinary general concept. With regard to the academization of different health care professions, the demand for DELT will increase. However, medical competencies can`t be taught fully online, since face-to-face patient interaction is mandatory. Communication skills can be practiced theoretically but have to be applied in reality.

Under-Vaccination in Adults: Qualitative Insights Into Perceived Barriers Reported by Vaccine Supporters, Undecided and Refuters

Although vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of preventing disease, vaccine hesitancy has been included among the ten threats of global health. Addressing low adult vaccination rates requires an adequate understanding of people's views. We explored perceived barriers to immunization among under-vaccinated adults to identify potential differences among vaccine supporters, refuters, and those who are undecided. We conducted a multi-center, mixed-methods study at 23 primary care practices in Greece. Each day, we asked three new randomly-selected adult healthcare users who attended the practice over the course of 30 consecutive working days. We used thematic content analysis to analyze their written answers to open-ended questions that addressed reasons for not getting vaccinated. Out of 1571 participants, two-thirds reported they were under-vaccinated as adults, thus accounting for three out of five of the supporters and the vast majority of the undecided and refuters. “Concerns/fears,” a “perception of low susceptibility to disease due to good health status,” the “absence of healthcare professional’s recommendation,” and “previous negative experiences” were four themes common to all three groups. Additional barriers reported by supporters and the undecided included “knowledge gaps about the necessity of adult vaccination,” “negligence,” and lack of “accessibility.” Among refuters, additional themes identified were “mistrust in pharmaceutical companies” and “disbelief in vaccine effectiveness.” In conclusion, under-vaccination is common, not only among refuters or the undecided, but also among supporters of adult vaccination. We found similarities and differences in under-vaccinated adults’ perceived barriers, depending on their individual perspectives. Physicians and public health services should take into consideration the impact of the wide range of attitudes and beliefs in their effort to address the underlying barriers to vaccination compliance as they attempt to increase vaccination coverage in adults.

Controversies and Challenges of Mass Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Italy: Medico-Legal Perspectives and Considerations

The worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic has resulted in a serious global crisis in the health, social and economic spheres. After an initial period of enthusiasm related to the efficacy of vaccines, in many European countries, a growing distrust in the population has matured, due to the reporting of severe adverse effects. Throughout the world, some cases of adverse events after the administration of the vaccine have been reported. In this communication, we want to discuss all the medico-legal aspects related to the global vaccination companion in terms of medical professional responsibility, informed consent and vaccination obligation, with particular attention to the Italian situation. Health professionals are tasked with promoting confidence in vaccination for the general population. Complete and detailed information and reliance on scientific research is essential to understand the great importance of the vaccination campaign. From a criminal point of view, we must avoid blaming health professionals in the case of side effects. At the same time, we must protect the population, ensuring compliance with the indications, guidelines, and an adequate method of administration. On the other hand, from a civil law perspective, it is correct to ensure full protection of those rare cases in which the administration of the vaccine is related to adverse events. Without a broad and global vaccination campaign, it will be impossible to overcome COVID-19.