Improved parental attitudes and beliefs through stepwise perinatal vaccination education

"I'll take them another day": A qualitative study exploring the socio-behavioral complexities of childhood vaccination in urban poor settlements

Despite improvement over recent decades, childhood vaccination uptake remains a concern across countries. The World Health Organization observed that over 25 million children missed out on one or more vaccines in 2021, with urban poor and other marginalized groups being the most affected. Given the higher risk of disease transmission and vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) outbreaks across densely populated urban slums, identifying effective interventions to improve childhood vaccination in this vulnerable population is crucial. This study explored the behavioral and social factors influencing childhood vaccination uptake in urban informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. A grounded theory approach was employed to develop a theoretical account of the socio-behavioral determinants of childhood vaccination. Five focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with purposively sampled caregivers of children under five years of age residing in informal settlements. The Theory of Planned Behavior guided the structuring of the FGD questions. An iterative process was used to analyze and identify emerging themes. Thirty-nine caregivers (median age 29 years) participated in the FGDs. From the analysis, four main thematic categories were derived. These included attitude factors such as perceived vaccine benefits, cultural beliefs, and emotional factors including parental love. Additionally, subjective norms, like fear of social judgment, and perceived behavioral control factors, such as self-control and gender-based influences, were identified. Furthermore, a number of practical factors, including the cost of vaccines and healthcare providers attitude, also affected the uptake of vaccination. Various social, behavioral, cultural, and contextual factors influence caregiver vaccination decisions in urban poor settings. Community-derived and context-specific approaches that address the complex interaction between socio-behavioral and other contextual factors need to be tested and applied to improve the timely uptake of childhood vaccinations among marginalized populations.

Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human behavior and more specifically behavioral insight-based approaches to vaccine uptake have often been overlooked. While there have been a few narrative reviews indexed in Medline on behavioral interventions to increase vaccine uptake, to our knowledge, none have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering not just high but also low-and-middle income countries.

METHODS

We included 613 studies from the Medline database in our systematic review and meta-analysis categorizing different behavioral interventions in 9 domains: education campaigns, on-site vaccination, incentives, free vaccination, institutional recommendation, provider recommendation, reminder and recall, message framing, and vaccine champion. Additionally, considering that there is variability in the acceptance of vaccines among different populations, we assessed studies from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), separately.

FINDINGS

Our results showed that behavioral interventions can considerably improve vaccine uptake in most settings. All domains that we examined improved vaccine uptake with the highest effect size associated with provider recommendation (OR: 3.4 (95%CI: 2.5-4.6); Domain: motivation) and on-site vaccination (OR: 2.9 (95%CI: 2.3-3.7); Domain: practical issues). While the number of studies conducted in LMICs was smaller, the quality of studies was similar with those conducted in HICs. Nevertheless, there were variations in the observed effect sizes.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that "provider recommendation" and "on-site vaccination" along with other behavioral interventions can be employed to increase vaccination rates globally.

Importance of human papillomavirus vaccination leaflets focusing on the safety profile targeted pediatricians in Japan

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between providing leaflets to support pediatricians in explaining the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and mother's decision to vaccinate their daughters in Japan.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we conducted a survey of mothers to evaluate the effect of leaflets that were created to support pediatricians in explaining the safety profile of the HPV vaccine. Mothers who provided consent for vaccination before receiving an explanation were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was the mother's decision to vaccinatetheir daughters with the HPV vaccine after receiving an explanation from pediatricians using our leaflets.

RESULTS

Among 161 eligible mothers, 101 decided on HPV vaccination (decided group) and 60 did not (decided against group). There was no difference in the maternal background between the 2 groups. The decided group had a significantly more positive impression of the leaflets than the undecided group. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, a detailed explanation for possible adverse events and specific solutions to them was associated with the mother's decision to have their daughters vaccinated (odds ratio 2.35, 95% confidence interval 1.02-5.44), but not the pathology of cervical cancer and the HPV vaccination process.

CONCLUSION

Leaflets emphasizing an explanation of adverse events may contribute to mothers' decision making for HPV vaccination.

Nudging toward vaccination: a systematic review

Background

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) and the global decline of vaccine coverage are a major global health threat, and novel approaches for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake are urgently needed. ‘Nudging’, defined as altering the environmental context in which a decision is made or a certain behaviour is enacted, has shown promising results in several health promotion strategies. We present a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding the value and impact of nudges to address VH.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to determine if nudging can mitigate VH and improve vaccine uptake. Our search strategy used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms to identify articles related to nudging and vaccination in nine research databases. 15 177 titles were extracted and assessed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The final list of included articles was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

Findings

Identified interventions are presented according to a framework for behaviour change, MINDSPACE. Articles (n=48) from 10 primarily high-income countries were included in the review. Nudging-based interventions identified include using reminders and recall, changing the way information is framed and delivered to an intended audience, changing the messenger delivering information, invoking social norms and emotional affect (eg, through storytelling, dramatic narratives and graphical presentations), and offering incentives or changing defaults. The most promising evidence exists for nudges that offer incentives to parents and healthcare workers, that make information more salient or that use trusted messengers to deliver information. The effectiveness of nudging interventions and the direction of the effect varies substantially by context. Evidence for some approaches is mixed, highlighting a need for further research, including how successful interventions can be adapted across settings.

Conclusion

Nudging-based interventions show potential to increase vaccine confidence and uptake, but further evidence is needed for the development of clear recommendations. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic increases the urgency of undertaking nudging-focused research.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020185817.

Evaluating the vaccination coverage: validity of household-hold vaccination booklet and caregiver's recall

BACKGROUND

We compared results from household data sources to medical record sources by using data from a vaccination coverage survey.

METHODS

Vaccination coverage (VC) was calculated based on parental recall, household vaccination booklet, and Zhejiang provincial immunization information system (ZJIIS). We evaluated the accuracy of VC based on household sources (vaccination booklet and recall) assuming the medical record was accurate. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were estimated as well as the Kappa statistic was also used to evaluate the agreement between data sources.

RESULTS

Among the 1,800 children identified in the household survey, all were registered in ZJIIS. VC estimated using the vaccination booklet alone was substantially lower than that based on medical records (net bias 3.4-16.7% in different age groups). VC based on parental recall ranged from 2.5% below (among children aged 1 year) to 16.7% points above (among children aged 6 years) than those based on medical records. Concordance was lowest for card estimates (32.5-45.5%). Sensitivity was <60% for all household sources, except for recall source. Specificity was lowest for recall estimates (14.5-42.6%). Positive predictive value was >75%, while negative predictive value was <50%, for all household sources. Kappa statistics generally indicated poor agreement between household and medical record sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Household-retained vaccination booklets and parental recall were insufficient sources for evaluating the VC. Our findings emphasized the importance of taking interventions to make the vaccination booklet more consistent with the records from medical resource.

Vaccine attitudes among young adults in Asia: a systematic review

Introduction: Young adults may be facing growing threats from vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). However, vaccination of young adults may not have drawn adequate attention. In Asia, adensely populated region with ahigh proportion of low-income countries, VPDs impose more of an economic and social burden than in western countries. However, knowledge about attitudes toward vaccines among young Asians is limited. This study aims to fill that gap by describing attitudes toward vaccines and how well they are accepted among young Asian adults through asystematic review of relevant Chinese and English publications.Methods: A three-stage searching strategy was adopted to identify eligible studies published during 2009-2019 according to the selection criteria, resulting in 68 articles being included.Results: The review finds that vaccination coverage among young Asians is generally lower than among their western peers, and there is a lack of relevant study in many Asian countries. Factors influencing young Asians' attitudes toward vaccines are categorized into contextual level, individual and social level, and vaccine-specific level.Conclusion: These suggest that there is a need to strengthen young adults' vaccination programs and to promote vaccine-related information and government.

A systematic review of studies that measure parental vaccine attitudes and beliefs in childhood vaccination

Background

Acceptance of vaccines is an important predictor of vaccine uptake. This has public health implications as those who are not vaccinated are at a higher risk of infection from vaccine preventable diseases. We aimed to examine how parental attitudes and beliefs towards childhood vaccination were measured in questionnaires through a systematic review of the literature.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature to identify primary research studies using tools to measure vaccine attitudes and beliefs, published between January 2012 and May 2018. Studies were included if they involved a quantitative survey of the attitudes and beliefs of parents about vaccinations recommended for children. We undertook a synthesis of the results with a focus on evaluating the tools used to measure hesitancy.

Results

A total of 116 studies met the inclusion criteria, 99 used a cross sectional study design, 5 used a case control study design, 4 used a pre-post study design and 8 used mixed methods study designs. Sample sizes of included studies ranged from 49 to 12,259. The most commonly used tool was the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Survey (n = 7). The most common theoretical framework used was the Health Belief Model (n = 25). Questions eliciting vaccination attitudes and beliefs varied widely.

Conclusions

There was heterogeneity in the types of questionnaires used in studies investigating attitudes and beliefs about vaccination in parents. Methods to measure parental attitudes and beliefs about vaccination could be improved with validated and standardised yet flexible instruments. The use of a standard set of questions should be encouraged in this area of study.

Communicating About Immunizations

A significant minority of patients and parents are vaccine hesitant, defined as having the desire to delay or defer immunizations despite easy access to vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy exists along a spectrum, from patients who are concerned but willing to accept the recommended vaccine schedule to those who wish to use a delayed schedule to those who refuse vaccines altogether. A strong recommendation in favor of a vaccine is the most important reason a patient or parent accepts the immunization. Structural changes, such as removing personal and religious exemptions for vaccines required for attending school, are effective tools in increasing vaccination rates.

Analysis of the effects of individual- and community- level predictors on migrant children's primary immunization in Yiwu city, east China

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of a wide range of individual- and community-level factors on migrant children's primary immunization.

METHODS

Migrant children aged 13-24 months (born from 1 June 2013 to 31 May 2014) were surveyed in Yiwu city, in June 2015. Social-demographic factors and vaccination records were collected. Five factors at community-level including community wealth, distance to the nearest immunization clinic, maternal education, antenatal clinic (ANC) visits, and hospital delivery were constructed. The relationship between individual- and community-level factors and a child's vaccination status for Chinese primary immunization were evaluated by logistic regression model and the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with the p-values and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

The community wealth (aOR:1.4; 95% CI:1.1-2.7), the community maternal education (aOR:1.8; 95% CI:1.4-4.5), the community ANC visits (aOR:1.8; 95% CI:1.3-2.8), and the community hospital delivery (aOR:2.2; 95% CI:1.6-4.8) were positively associated with the completeness of primary immunization, while community distance to the nearest immunization clinic was negatively associated with the completeness of primary immunization (aOR:0.7; 95% CI:0.5-0.9). The coverage of completeness of primary immunization was higher among children living in rural areas than those living in urban areas (aOR:1.7; 95% CI: 1.3-3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In order to achieve better vaccination coverage among migrant children in Yiwu, as well as to close the gaps and disparities of acceptability and accessibility in childhood vaccination in urban areas, policy makers should design interventions based on the factors addressed in this study.

Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.

Vaccination hesitancy in the antenatal period: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Recent reports of childhood vaccination coverage in Australia have shown steadily improving vaccination coverage and narrowing differences between highest and lowest coverage regions, yet the NSW North Coast consistently has the lowest coverage rates nationally. Better understanding of parents' vaccination attitudes and actions within this region may guide strategies to improve uptake. The antenatal period is when many parents explore and consolidate vaccination attitudes and so is pivotal for study.

METHODS

Women attending public antenatal clinics at six NSW North Coast hospitals completed a 10-min cross-sectional survey capturing stage of decision-making and decisional-conflict as well as vaccination hesitancy, attitudes, intentions and actions. Unscored responses were analysed for individual items. Decisional conflict subscales were scored using published algorithms. For consented children, immunisation status was assessed at 8 months using the Australian Immunisation Register. For Likert scale items, odds ratios and Fisher's exact, chi-squared and Chasson's tests assessed differences between subgroups. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests assessed differences between subgroups for items on scales of 0-to-10 and decisional conflict sub-scale scores.

RESULTS

First-time mothers were 3 times more likely than others (OR = 3.40, 95% CI 1.34-8.60) to identify as unsure, somewhat or very hesitant. Most respondents (92.2%) wanted their new baby to receive all recommended vaccinations. Many had high or moderate levels of concern about vaccine side effects (25.4%), safety (23.6%) and effectiveness (23.1%). Increased hesitancy was associated with decreased confidence in the schedule (p < 0.001), decreased trust in child's doctor (p < 0.0001), decreased perceived protection from disease (p < 0.05) and increased decisional conflict on all measured subscales (p < 0.0001). First-time mothers had higher decisional conflict on values clarity, support and uncertainty sub-scales. By 8 months of age, 83.2% of infants were fully vaccinated. Those with none or a few minor concerns were over 8 times more likely than others to vaccinate on schedule (OR = 8.7, 1.3-56.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Importantly this study provides further strong justification to talk with women about vaccination during pregnancy and particularly to ensure that first-time mothers are offered assistance in making these important decisions, where indicated. Further research should focus on optimising the timing, content and delivery style of perinatal interventions.