Factors influencing the immunization status of children in a rural setting

Urban and rural healthcare providers' perspectives on HPV vaccination in Minnesota

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination can dramatically reduce the incidence of HPV-associated cancers. However, HPV vaccination coverage in rural areas is lower than in urban areas, and overall HPV vaccination coverage in the United States remains lower than other adolescent vaccines. We conducted 20 qualitative interviews with adolescent healthcare providers and clinic staff in urban and rural Minnesota and assessed their perspectives on HPV vaccination. Guiding interview topics included: strategies to persuade families to vaccinate their children, the impact of the patient-provider relationship and the clinical environment on vaccination uptake, and provider perceptions of parents' vaccine attitudes. In thematic analysis, all participants reported using common vaccination strategies, such as framing the HPV vaccine in terms of cancer prevention. The analysis also revealed three themes described as occurring uniquely or more intensely in rural communities than urban communities: the rural value of choice or independence, the spread of misinformation, and close-knit, multifaceted patient-provider relationships in clinical practice. Interventions aimed at increasing HPV vaccination should consider the distinctive circumstances of rural healthcare providers and patients.

Barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural areas of the United States: A systematic review of the literature

Early childhood vaccination rates are lower in rural areas of the U.S. compared with suburban and urban areas. Our aim was to identify barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural U.S. communities. We completed a systematic review of original research conducted in the U.S. between January 1, 2000-July 25, 2021. We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We included studies that examined barriers to and facilitators of routine immunizations in children <36 months old in rural areas. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we reported studies' methodologies and targeted populations, definitions of rurality, and common themes across studies that reflected barriers to or facilitators of vaccination. Ultimately, 17 papers met inclusion criteria for review. The majority of studies (10/17) were conducted within one U.S. state, and the same number (10/17) were conducted prior to 2005. Facilitators of vaccine uptake in rural communities identified across studies included reminder/recall systems and parents' relationships with providers. Parental hesitancy, negative clinic experiences, referrals outside of primary care settings, and distance to providers were identified as barriers to vaccination in rural settings. This review revealed a limited scope of evidence on barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural communities. More investigations of the causes of low vaccine coverage and the effectiveness of interventions for increasing vaccine uptake are urgently needed in rural pediatric populations to address persistent rural-urban immunization disparities.

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.

Beliefs around childhood vaccines in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

While childhood vaccines are safe and effective, some parents remain hesitant to vaccinate their children, which has led to outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. The goal of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the range of beliefs around childhood vaccines elicited using open-ended questions, which are better suited for discovering beliefs compared to closed-ended questions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched using keywords for childhood vaccines, decision makers, beliefs, and attitudes to identify studies that collected primary data using a variety of open-ended questions regarding routine childhood vaccine beliefs in the United States. Study designs, population characteristics, vaccine types, and vaccine beliefs were abstracted. We conducted a qualitative analysis to conceptualize beliefs into themes and generated descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1727 studies identified, 71 were included, focusing largely on parents (including in general, and those who were vaccine hesitant or at risk of hesitancy). Seven themes emerged: Adverse effects was most prominent, followed by mistrust, perceived lack of necessity, pro-vaccine opinions, skepticism about effectiveness, desire for autonomy, and morality concerns. The most commonly described beliefs included that vaccines can cause illnesses; a child's immune system can be overwhelmed if receiving too many vaccines at once; vaccines contain harmful ingredients; younger children are more susceptible to vaccine adverse events; the purpose of vaccines is profit-making; and naturally developed immunity is better than that acquired from vaccines. Nearly a third of the studies exclusively assessed minority populations, and more than half of the studies examined beliefs only regarding HPV vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies used open-ended questions to elicit beliefs about vaccines. Many of the studies that did so, focused on HPV vaccine. Concerns about vaccine safety were the most commonly stated beliefs about childhood vaccines, likely because studies were designed to capture barriers and challenges to vaccination.

Barriers to immunization among newcomers: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence exploring vaccine decision-making among newcomers. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies aimed at identifying factors that influence newcomers' decision-making with regards to vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central. To be included, studies needed to employ a qualitative methodology and address newcomer attitudes, beliefs, and/or perceptions regarding vaccination. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for relevant information and applied a content analysis methodology to code the identified barriers.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in this review, and four types of barriers were identified: cultural factors, knowledge barriers, insufficient access to healthcare, and vaccine hesitancy. Insufficient knowledge about vaccination and the virus being prevented and concerns about safety were the most commonly reported barriers. A sub-analysis of barriers specific to HPV indicated that cultural beliefs about sexuality and incomplete knowledge about the role of HPV in the development of cervical cancer are major barriers to vaccine uptake.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to improve vaccination uptake in newcomers should consider focusing on the barriers identified in this review while taking into account the unique opportunities for promoting uptake within newcomer populations.

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.

The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions

The current studies investigated the potential impact of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, and exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, on vaccination intentions. In Study 1, British parents completed a questionnaire measuring beliefs in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and the likelihood that they would have a fictitious child vaccinated. Results revealed a significant negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions. This effect was mediated by the perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and mistrust in authorities. In Study 2, participants were exposed to information that either supported or refuted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, or a control condition. Results revealed that participants who had been exposed to material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories showed less intention to vaccinate than those in the anti-conspiracy condition or controls. This effect was mediated by the same variables as in Study 1. These findings point to the potentially detrimental consequences of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and highlight their potential role in shaping health-related behaviors.

Influencing factors in MMR immunisation decision making

Immunisation decision making is not a straightforward process for parents. Many factors influence parental decision making on whether they immunise their child with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The feasibility study described in this article provides insight into influencing factors associated with decisions regarding the immunisation of children by parents. The study findings suggest that the practice nurse is a credible source of information for parents seeking informed decision making. At a time when the incidence of measles and mumps is rising in the UK, the provision of appropriate information by the practice nurse has the potential to increase uptake of the MMR vaccine.

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.

A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions

OBJECTIVE

To identify the decision support needs of parents attempting to make an informed health decision on behalf of a child.

CONTEXT

The first step towards implementing patient decision support is to assess patients' information and decision-making needs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic search of key bibliographic databases for decision support studies was performed in 2005. Reference lists of relevant review articles and key authors were searched. Three relevant journals were hand searched.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Non-intervention studies containing data on decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted on study characteristics, decision focus and decision support needs. Studies were quality assessed using a pre-defined set of criteria. Data synthesis used the UK Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and forty nine studies were included across various child health decisions, settings and study designs. Thematic analysis of decision support needs indicated three key issues: (i) information (including suggestions about the content, delivery, source, timing); (ii) talking to others (including concerns about pressure from others); and (iii) feeling a sense of control over the process that could be influenced by emotionally charged decisions, the consultation process, and structural or service barriers. These were consistent across decision type, study design and whether or not the study focused on informed decision making.

Systematically reviewing qualitative studies complements survey design: an exploratory study of barriers to paediatric immunisations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Designing survey questions requires content expertise, awareness of previous qualitative literature, and piloting. We examined surveys addressing parental barriers to vaccinating children to determine if they comprehensively included themes identified in published qualitative studies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of 12 electronic databases and compared questions asked in eligible surveys identified to issues raised in qualitative studies. Issues included nine themes related to harm, six related to distrust, eight to issues of access, and three other issues.

RESULTS

The 29 eligible surveys failed to adequately address several important themes identified in qualitative studies. The number that failed to address the following themes were as follows: beliefs that vaccines cause diseases (n = 26); painful (n = 25); distrust of medical community (n = 28); communication problems with staff (n = 25); memories of their own or others adverse experiences (n = 28); fear of long-term effects (n = 26); belief the medical community does not understand adverse events associated with vaccines (n = 28); and parent's own lack of knowledge about diseases (n = 29).

CONCLUSIONS

Many surveys of parental barriers to immunization failed to address a number of important themes identified in qualitative studies. To the extent this is true in other areas, ensuring that investigators have conducted an adequate number and variety of qualitative studies, and systematically reviewing those studies, will improve surveys' content validity.

Systematic review of qualitative studies exploring parental beliefs and attitudes toward childhood vaccination identifies common barriers to vaccination

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a systematic review of qualitative studies can lead to identification of consistent themes across studies, using barriers toward childhood vaccination as an example.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed a systematic literature search of studies identified in 10 electronic databases. Two independent reviewers selected the relevant abstracts and articles, then extracted information. Content analysis methodology was used to create a coding template for barriers and then to identify how many studies identified specific barriers.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in this overview. Eight studies used semistructured interviews, five used focus groups, and two used both methodologies. Themes fell under four major headings: issues of harm, issues of distrust, access issues, and other issues. Barriers identified in more than half of the studies included concern about the risk of adverse effects, concern that vaccinations are painful, distrust of by those advocating vaccines (including belief in conspiracy), belief that vaccination should not occur when the child has a minor illness, unpleasant staff or poor communication, and lack of awareness of the vaccination schedule.

CONCLUSION

Systematically reviewing qualitative studies on barriers to childhood vaccination provided important information on barriers that are consistently identified by parents in several different studies.

Childhood immunizations: a parent education and incentive program

This article describes some strategies to help reduce the immunization barriers of parental knowledge deficits and transportation costs through a parent education and incentive program. A record review of 471 children in 22 licensed Norfolk, Virginia, day-care centers revealed that 141 (29.9%) had inadequate age-appropriate immunizations. Educational programs included depictions of preventable communicable diseases and their consequences. Upon completion of appropriate immunizations, parents received transportation vouchers and gifts. By June 2000, 255 parents, day-care administrators, teachers, and staff had participated in educational programs and seven day-care centers earned certificate awards for improved immunization rates among enrollees. Four centers had 100% age-appropriate immunization rate, and three had a rate of 92% to 95%.