Using a Harm Reduction Model to Reduce Barriers to Vaccine Administration

Parental acceptance of typhoid conjugate vaccine for children aged 6 months to 15 years in an outbreak setting of Lyari Town Karachi, Pakistan

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the parental acceptance of Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine (TCV) and to determine the predictors of TCV vaccination status among children in an outbreak setting of extensively drug resistant (XDR) typhoid fever in Karachi, Pakistan.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey using the WHO recommended rapid vaccine coverage assessment technique was conducted. Out of 11, four union councils (UCs) in Lyari Town were randomly selected. A parent or primary caretaker from the eligible household was interviewed. Data were collected using a locally validated vaccine attitudes scale (VAS). Sum of scores was calculated for VAS. A higher score denoted negative attitudes and perceptions regarding TCV and vice versa. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the predictors of TCV vaccination status.

RESULTS

Based on the 14-item parental VAS, 78.0 % of the parents had a score between 0 to <40 and 22 % had a score ≥40. VAS score of <40 was significantly associated with higher odds of receiving TCV during the campaign setting (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 1.30; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI): 1.02, 1.66). The odds of receiving TCV vaccination were higher among children whose parents were aware of the ongoing vaccination campaign in the area (aOR: 4.57; 95 % CI: 2.93, 7.12) and expressed willingness to get their child vaccinated against typhoid fever (aOR: 2.54; 95 % CI: 1.82, 3.55).

CONCLUSION

Parental awareness of the ongoing vaccination campaign, positive perception and attitudes towards vaccine were found to be significantly associated with TCV vaccination among children. Appropriately structured pre-vaccination awareness campaigns focused on childhood vaccination targeted towards parents are necessary to improve parental awareness, attitude and behavior towards vaccination.

Onge JE, Shafazand S, Potter J. Vaccination in pregnancy: Healthcare provider attitudes and practices

OBJECTIVE

To assess provider attitudes and practices regarding vaccination in pregnancy to discern strategies to increase vaccination rates in pregnancy, given that in the USA, various healthcare organizations recommend that pregnant individuals be vaccinated against influenza, pertussis, and SARS-CoV-2, but vaccination rates among gravidas remain suboptimal across these vaccines.

METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved survey was disseminated to obstetric healthcare providers by email from June through October 2021. Questions assessed provider demographics, attitudes, and practices surrounding vaccination in pregnancy. A total of 192 providers consented, 179 initiated the survey, and 153 completed it entirely. Statistical software (SAS) was used to perform descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

All providers strongly agreed/agreed that all pregnant individuals should receive vaccines in pregnancy. Following patient vaccination consent, 13% reported needing to refer patients to alternative sites for vaccine administration. Following patient vaccination decline, 13% did not determine reasons for refusal, 30% did not re-counsel at subsequent visits, and 92% did not ask another staff member to counsel the patient.

CONCLUSION

Despite provider support for maternal immunization, uptake of vaccines in gravidas remains suboptimal, demonstrating a gap between provider recommendations and patient uptake. These data highlight opportunities for intervention regarding counseling and vaccine availability to increase vaccine uptake in pregnancy.

Screening for Information Environments: A Role for Health Systems to Address the Misinformation Crisis

Misinformation about health topics is a public health issue. We are bombarded with information from many sources, across many digital means of communication, affecting the ways in which we are born, grow, work, live, and age. This makes information environments a social determinant of health (SDoH), but one not currently adequately addressed by clinical or public health practitioners. Since health systems are already screening for social determinants of health, existing mechanisms can additionally screen for unhealthy information environments. Then, for those patients who screen positive, we can apply best practices learned from initiatives addressing vaccine hesitancy: providing a non-judgmental environment in which to discuss health beliefs, using motivational interviewing techniques to gage patient perspectives and readiness for change, and taking a harm-reduction approach in recognizing that behavior change evolves over time. Displacing misinformation is a process, not an event. As such, we need to address the underlying psychological and sociological reasons that people maintain unscientific beliefs as we would hope to do with any other SDoH. Furthermore, as information environments are the product of both individual choices and structural factors, clinicians should approach patients immersed in unhealthy information environments without blame or ostracism, much as we would approach any patient adversely impacted by social determinants of health.