Parents' choices and rationales for alternative vaccination schedules: a qualitative study

Characterizing timeliness of recommended vaccinations among privately-insured children in the United States, 2009-2019

BACKGROUND

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends early childhood vaccinations, but knowledge is limited about the magnitude and timing of vaccine delay for each recommended dose on a population level. We sought to characterize longitudinal patient-level patterns of early childhood vaccination schedule adherence.

METHODS

Using the Merative MarketScan Commercial Database (2009-2019), we identified commercially-insured infants who received at least one timely dose of a 2-month recommended vaccine. We categorized the number of recommended vaccines administered on the same date at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months of age (grace period: -7, +21 days). A Sankey diagram illustrated the number of vaccines received concomitantly during each age window and depicted transitions to different states over time (e.g., no vaccine delay to vaccine delay). For each vaccine dose, we estimated the cumulative incidence of receipt.

RESULTS

Among 1,239,364 eligible children, 28% of infants aged 4 months and 38% of infants aged 6 months did not receive timely, concomitant administration of all recommended vaccines. The number of timely vaccines received concomitantly and age at receipt varied most for doses recommended during the second year of life. Children with a previously delayed (versus timely) dose consistently experienced longer time to subsequent dose.

CONCLUSIONS

National coverage improved over time for all recommended vaccine doses under study, most notably for measles, mumps, and rubella. However, many children do not receive vaccines on schedule. Interventions to maintain adherence to the recommended schedule are needed early in life.

Influences on COVID-19 vaccine Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study With Urban Indigenous and Rural Adults

Despite the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, public hesitancy about receiving vaccination remains strong among disproportionately affected populations in the United States. To design more locally and culturally appropriate strategies, research is needed to explore the qualitative characteristics of vaccine hesitancy in these populations. Thus, we conducted in-depth interviews with 19 Indigenous and 20 rural participants and utilized a grounded theory approach to identify factors associated with their COVID-19 vaccine decision making. Wariness regarding safety of vaccines, resignation over the quality of available health care, and a historical mistrust of government-led interventions influenced vaccine rejection for indigenous participants. Rural participants remained divided on the perceived threat and consequences of COVID-19 and the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. The influence of friends and family members impacted vaccine hesitancy, as did discussions with healthcare providers when discussions were perceived to be respectful, sensitive, and non-judgmental.

Dengue Fever Epidemics and the Prospect of Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Clinical Trials in Children

About half of the world's population is at risk of dengue infection. Epidemics of dengue fever have caused an increased risk of morbidity and mortality in recent years, which led to the exploration of vaccines as a preventive measure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, immune response, and safety of dengue vaccines in children by analyzing clinical trials. The review followed standard procedures for data extraction using PRISMA guidelines and searching multiple databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, Health Source, Science Direct, and Academic Search Premiere. Eligible studies involved children (0-17 years old). Quality assessment was analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria, while data synthesis was conducted using thematic analysis and meta-analysis. Among the 38 selected studies, dengue vaccines showed varying efficacy against all four serotypes. The CYD-TDV (Dengvaxia®) and Tekade (TAK-003) vaccines showed strong protection against severe dengue, but their long-term efficacy varied. Vaccines triggered satisfactory immune responses, notably in those previously exposed to dengue. Safety profiles were mostly favorable, noting mild adverse events post-vaccination. Meta-analysis supported vaccine efficacy and immune response, but safety concerns warrant further exploration. In conclusion, dengue vaccines showed promising efficacy and immune response, particularly against severe manifestations.

Pushed to the Fringe - The Impact of Vaccine Hesitancy on Children and Families

Vaccine hesitancy has been described as any delay or refusal of vaccines despite their availability and is increasing in Australia and other middle to high-income countries. The aim of this study is to gain a deep understanding of the experiences and influences on vaccine hesitant children and their families. A qualitative interview approach was undertaken with vaccine hesitant parents and pregnant women (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken on data obtained using the guidelines of Braun and Clarke. Three main themes were identified in this study, including Pushed to the fringe; A culture of Distrust; and Coerced choices. The study revealed that vaccine hesitant parents felt isolated and pushed to the fringe of society. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the Australian "No Jab - No Pay" and "No Jab - No Play" legislation. This contributed to feelings of marginalization. Participants also cited a breakdown in the therapeutic relationships, which impacted their child's health. Additionally, a lack of sufficient information was received to achieve informed consent. These results suggest that there is a need for enhanced education for some health-care professionals, many of whom have reported being confronted by conversations with vaccine hesitant parents.

Beyond Vaccination Coverage: Population-Based Measurement of Early Childhood Immunization Schedule Adherence

The immunization schedule recommended by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) provides a structure for how 10 different vaccine series should be administered to children in the first 18 months of life. Progress toward US early childhood immunization goals has largely focused on measuring vaccination coverage at age 24 months. However, standard vaccination coverage measures do not reflect whether children received vaccine doses by recommended ages, or whether vaccines were given concomitantly, per the schedule. In this paper, we describe innovations in population-level measurement of immunization schedule adherence through quantifying vaccination timeliness and undervaccination patterns. Measuring vaccination timeliness involves comparing when children received vaccine doses relative to ACIP age recommendations. To assess undervaccination patterns, children's vaccination histories are analyzed to determine whether they were vaccinated consistent with the ACIP schedule. Some patterns, such as spreading out vaccines across visits, are indicative of parental hesitancy. Other patterns, such as starting all recommended series but missing doses, are largely indicative of other immunization services delivery challenges. Since 2003, at least 12 studies have used National Immunization Survey-Child, immunization information system, or integrated health plan data to measure vaccination timeliness or undervaccination patterns at national or state levels. Moving forward, these novel measures can be leveraged for population-based surveillance of vaccine confidence, and for distinguishing undervaccination due to parental vaccine hesitancy from undervaccination due to other causes. Broader adoption of these measures can facilitate identification of targeted strategies for improving timely and routine early childhood vaccination uptake across the United States.

Combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine and febrile convulsions: the risk considered in the broad context

INTRODUCTION

Studies on quadrivalent measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccines have indicated a twofold increased relative risk of febrile convulsion (FC) after the first dose compared to MMR and V administered at the same medical visit (MMR+V).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review contextualizes FC occurrence after the first MMRV vaccine dose from a clinical perspective and outlines approaches to attenuate FC occurrence post-vaccination.

EXPERT OPINION

While the relative FC risk increases after the first dose of MMRV compared to MMR+V vaccine in measles-naïve infants, the attributable risk is low versus the overall FC risk in the pediatric population triggered by other causes, like natural exposure to pathogens or routine vaccination. No increased risk of FC has been reported after MMRV co-administration with other routine vaccines compared to MMRV alone. Based on our findings and considering the MMRV vaccination benefits (fewer injections, higher coverage, better vaccination compliance), the overall benefit-risk profile of MMRV vaccine is considered to remain positive. Potential occurrence of FC in predisposed children (e.g. with personal/family history of FC) may be attenuated if they receive MMR+V instead of MMRV as the first dose. It is also important to monitor vaccinees for fever during the first 2 weeks post-vaccination.

Sometimes Your Heart Says 'I Don't Know': Insights From Parents of Undervaccinated Children

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To explore drivers of suboptimal vaccination rates by understanding why parents without strong antivaccine beliefs do not fully vaccinate their children.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted in Washington state with 41 parents of children aged 24 to 48 months who delayed, declined, or missed some but not all vaccines. During the focus groups, parents were asked about reasons their child was undervaccinated, information that might address their concerns, and additional support they needed. Transcripts were analyzed using template analysis with deductive and inductive codes.

RESULTS

Focus groups identified multiple reasons for parents deciding to delay or decline vaccines for their children, including issues of individualism and control. The groups emphasized the impact of personal circumstances, such as changes in insurance, on whether children were vaccinated. Our data also shed light on the reasons that parents do vaccinate their children, including school vaccination requirements, negative experiences with vaccine-preventable diseases, and a family tradition of vaccinating. Focus group participants offered suggestions for improving vaccine communication with parents such as having more parent/patient-friendly vaccine information, providing forums to discuss their concerns, and offering vaccination information in advance of well-child appointments.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve the full benefit of vaccines on individual and community health, we need better ways to address vaccine hesitancy and decrease barriers. We suggest that many hesitant parents would benefit from more dialog with health care providers about vaccines, more approachable educational materials, and enforcement of existing policies requiring vaccines in schools and childcare facilities.

Decision making in vaccine hesitant parents and pregnant women - An integrative review

Objectives

: Vaccine refusal is increasing in Australia and is a major concern in high- and middle-income countries. There is evidence to suggest that some parents, even those who elect to immunise, may be vaccine hesitant with some manipulating the schedule by excluding or delaying some vaccines. The aim of this review was to gain an understanding of factors that influence vaccine decision-making in pregnant women and parents of children.

Design

: An integrative review approach was used to produce an analysis of existing literature on vaccine decision-making in pregnancy and parents. As the broadest of review methods, an integrative review can include a range of experimental and non-experimental research, thereby ensuring the inclusion of data from multiple perspectives.

Data Sources

: Online databases were searched for research related to vaccine decision-making in pregnant women and parents. Original and review articles were sought that were published in English between 2015 and 2021. Reviewed articles included qualitative and quantitative studies and systematic reviews. No mixed methods papers were located or excluded from this review.

Review methods

: The review method was an integrative review informed by Coughlan.

Results

: Papers from thirteen predominantly high- and middle-income countries were selected for this review. A total of 31 articles fit the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including qualitative, quantitative and review articles. Three main themes were identified including the role of healthcare professionals, vaccine safety concerns and alternative influences. Alternative influences included: social media, friends and family, religion, conspiracy theories and salutogenic parenting. Findings suggest that high levels of anxiety are involved in vaccine decision-making with parents seeking information from multiple sources including healthcare professionals, friends and family and social media.

Conclusions

: Pregnancy is an ideal time to provide education on both pregnancy and childhood vaccinations. However, some parents reported dissatisfaction in their therapeutic relationships with healthcare professionals. As a result, parents can resort to their own information seeking, in the main via social media which has been linked to vaccine refusal. Additionally, some healthcare professionals report feeling inadequately prepared for the role of immunisation promotion and provision. Parental information seeking from non-traditional sources has been shown to result in the acquisition of misinformation, exposure to conspiracy theories, the inevitable loss of vaccine confidence and subsequent vaccine refusal.

Is the pre-natal period a missed opportunity for communicating with parents about immunizations? Evidence from a longitudinal qualitative study in Victoria, British Columbia

Background

Growing evidence shows that many parents begin the decision-making process about infant vaccination during pregnancy and these decisions – once established – may be resistant to change. Despite this, many interventions targeting vaccination are focused on communicating with parents after their baby is born. This suggests that the prenatal period may constitute a missed opportunity for communicating with expectant parents about infant vaccination.

Methods

Using a longitudinal qualitative design, we conducted two interviews (prepartum and postpartum) with women (n = 19) to explore the optimal timing of vaccination information. The data were analyzed thematically, and examined across all sets of pre- and post-partum interviews as well as within each individual participant to draw out salient themes.

Results

Most participants formed their intentions to vaccinate before the baby was born and indicated that they would welcome information about vaccination from their maternity care providers. However, few individuals recalled their maternity care providers initiating vaccination-related conversations with them.

Conclusion

The prenatal period is an important time to begin conversations with expectant parents about vaccinating their infants, particularly if these conversations are initiated by trusted maternity care providers. More information is needed on how maternity care providers can be better supported to have these conversations with their patients.

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.

Performance of conceptual framework elements for the retrieval of qualitative health literature: a case study

Objective

A growing volume of studies address methods for performing systematic reviews of qualitative studies. One such methodological aspect is the conceptual framework used to structure the review question and plan the search strategy for locating relevant studies. The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the retrieval potential of each element of conceptual frameworks in qualitative systematic reviews in the health sciences.

Methods

The presence of elements from conceptual frameworks in publication titles, abstracts, and controlled vocabulary in CINAHL and PubMed was analyzed using a set of qualitative reviews and their included studies as a gold standard. Using a sample of 101 publications, we determined whether particular publications could be retrieved if a specific element from the conceptual framework was used in the search strategy.

Results

We found that the relative recall of conceptual framework elements varied considerably, with higher recall for patient/population (99%) and research type (97%) and lower recall for intervention/phenomenon of interest (74%), outcome (79%), and context (61%).

Conclusion

The use of patient/population and research type elements had high relative recall for qualitative studies. However, other elements should be used with great care due to lower relative recall.

Genetic associations with a fever after measles-containing vaccines

Children have elevated fever risk 1 to 2 weeks after the first dose of a measles-containing vaccine (MCV), which is likely affected by genetic, immunologic, and clinical factors. Fever after MCV is associated with febrile seizures, though may also be associated with higher measles antibody titers. This exploratory study investigated genetic and immunologic associations with a fever after MCV. Concurrent with a randomized Phase 3 clinical trial of 12–15-month-olds who received their first measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in which parents recorded post-vaccination temperatures daily, we consented a subset to collect additional blood and performed human leukocyte antigens (HLA) typing. Association between fever 5–12 days after MMR (“MMR-associated”) and HLA type was assessed using logistic regression. We compared 42-day post-vaccination geometric mean titers (GMT) to measles between children who did and did not have fever using a t-test. We enrolled 86 children and performed HLA typing on 82; 13 (15.1%) had MMR-associated fever. Logistic regressions identified associations between MMR-associated fever and HLA Class I loci A-29:02 (P = .036), B-57:01 (P = .018), C-06:02 (P = .006), C-14:02 (P = .022), and Class II loci DRB1-15 (P = .045). However, Bonferroni's adjustment for multiple comparisons suggests that these associations could have been due to chance. Ninety-eight percent of children had protective antibody titers to measles; however, GMT was higher among those with fever compared with children without fever (P = .006). Fever after the measles vaccine correlated with genetic factors and higher immune response. This study suggests a possible genetic susceptibility to MMR-associated fever.

Detecting adherence to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule from user-generated content in a US parenting forum

Vaccine hesitancy is considered as one of the leading causes for the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases. A non-negligible minority of parents does not fully adhere to the recommended vaccination schedule, leading their children to be partially immunized and at higher risk of contracting vaccine preventable diseases. Here, we leverage more than one million comments of 201,986 users posted from March 2008 to April 2019 on the public online forum BabyCenter US to learn more about such parents. For 32% with geographic location, we find the number of mapped users for each US state resembling the census population distribution with good agreement. We employ Natural Language Processing to identify 6884 and 10,131 users expressing their intention of following the recommended and alternative vaccination schedule, respectively RSUs and ASUs. From the analysis of their activity on the forum we find that ASUs have distinctly different interests and previous experiences with vaccination than RSUs. In particular, ASUs are more likely to follow groups focused on alternative medicine, are two times more likely to have experienced adverse events following immunization, and to mention more serious adverse reactions such as seizure or developmental regression. Content analysis of comments shows that the resources most frequently shared by both groups point to governmental domains (.gov). Finally, network analysis shows that RSUs and ASUs communicate between each other (indicating the absence of echo chambers), however with the latter group being more endogamic and favoring interactions with other ASUs. While our findings are limited to the specific platform analyzed, our approach may provide additional insights for the development of campaigns targeting parents on digital platforms.

The importance and effectiveness of vaccines is generally high, but concerns toward vaccination contribute to eroding confidence in vaccination. Recently, alternative vaccination schedules are becoming popular as they allow parents to selectively delay or refuse certain vaccines depending on their specific concerns. Not being expressly anti-vaccination, these parents are challenging to identify on social media, however understanding the determinants of their hesitancy toward vaccines could help addressing parents’ concerns through targeted interventions. In this work, we create a Natural Language Processing pipeline to automatically identify parents who state their adherence to the recommended or alternative vaccination schedule on a popular parenting forum, BabyCenter US. We find that these users have distinct interests and different experiences with vaccination, although they frequently share similar sources of information (e.g., .gov websites). Differently from what is observed on most popular digital platforms like Facebook or Twitter, where users communicate mainly with like-minded users, Babycenter users communicate between each other independently of the vaccination schedule they adopt. These observations suggest that parenting fora may be a more suitable medium to develop intervention aiming to influence positively the vaccination behavior of parents.

Vaccine Hesitancy: Characteristics of the Refusal of Childhood Vaccination in a Peruvian Population

Understanding the determinants of vaccine hesitancy is paramount to reinstate confidence in immunizations. The objective of this investigation was to explore the characteristics of the vaccination decision-making process that may result in the refusal of childhood immunization in Peru, during February-June 2020. A descriptive, cross-sectional study involving telephone interviews was executed in Peru. The Parents Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey was used. A demographic analysis was done, followed by an unadjusted exploratory subgroup analysis. Out of 552 subjects, 9.8% were considered vaccine hesitant, 70.3% had purposively delayed vaccination, 88.4% thought fewer vaccines were better and 52.2% were concerned about vaccine safety. The level of hesitancy was inversely proportional to the level of education and the number of children at home. Mothers and subjects aged ≤29 years showed a greater level of vaccine hesitancy. This population displays a vaccine-hesitant conduct. Vaccine safety and the number of vaccines to administer are important determining factors. This behavior could be influenced by variables such as level of education, number of children at home, parental relationship, and age. These results help understand local vaccination behaviors. More studies are encouraged to confirm and validate these findings.

Attitudes of East Tennessee residents towards general and pertussis vaccination: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite vaccination being one of the safest and most successful public health tools to control infectious diseases, some people still doubt the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In order to address vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccination sentiment, it is necessary to understand vaccination attitude development and vaccination behaviors. The objective of this project was to qualitatively investigate general vaccination attitudes and behavior with an additional emphasis on pertussis vaccination.

METHODS

To identify factors that influence attitudes toward vaccination and behaviors in East Tennessee, eleven one-on-one interviews were conducted with participants recruited through convenience and purposive sampling. Interview protocol and deductive codes were developed using the Triadic Theory of Influence as a theoretical framework. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively and themes were identified through constant comparison of interviews, considering both deductively and inductively coded data.

RESULTS

Most participants (8) held positive attitudes towards vaccination. Participants (8) comfortable with vaccinating themselves or their children said they followed recommendations of doctors. Vaccine hesitant participants' (3) most frequently cited concern was safety and concern about side effects. These participants also reported that they referenced non-academic or professional sources and felt confident about their knowledge of vaccines and diseases. Vaccine hesitant participants had low perception of risk of vaccine-preventable diseases, particularly pertussis. Participants with children reported that friends and family were influential when deciding to vaccinate their children.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified themes in the attitudes towards vaccination of participants recruited in East Tennessee. We found that risk perception and family and social group attitudes were the primary influences on vaccination decision making. We recommend that future research includes anti-vaccination participants in their research, if possible, and further explore the relationship between perception of one's own knowledge and health behavior outcomes.

How attitudes towards vaccination change in the face of an outbreak

Outbreaks of infectious diseases cause great fear and a desire to avoid infection. One of the most effective outbreak containment methods is vaccination. However, in order for this strategy to be effective, a majority of the susceptible population should be vaccinated in a short time. This may require changing the practice of immunization execution and changing attitudes toward vaccination. In the survey on the attitudes of Polish parents and guardians toward vaccinations, we asked about the acceptance of vaccination in places other than health-care facilities in both non-epidemic and epidemic conditions. The study was conducted using an anonymous questionnaire in two Warsaw hospitals between August 2018 and February 2019 and was addressed to parents and legal guardians of children. At the time of the survey, "epidemic" was a hypothetical term. Two hundred fifty respondents participated in the study. The pharmacy was the most accepted non-healthcare facility vaccination location, both normally and during an outbreak, with 54.4% (123/226) and 75.2% (170/226) of respondents finding pharmacies an acceptable location, respectively. A gas station had the lowest acceptance: 5.8% (13/226) and 28.8% (65/226), respectively. The only statistically significant demographic factors affecting acceptance of each vaccination location were male sex (p = .001) and higher education level (p = .001). Of those surveyed, 58.5% (131/224) would approve of vaccination in front of a hospital or outpatient clinic during an outbreak; 70.5% (43/61) of men versus 54.0% (88/163) of women, p = .026. In conclusion, during an outbreak, people would be more likely to accept vaccination at locations other than a health-care facility.

A qualitative study examining pediatric clinicians' perceptions of delayed vaccine schedules

OBJECTIVE

To explore pediatric clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, and perceived social norms about the impact of delayed vaccine schedules on the clinical management of their patients.

METHODS

We conducted 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews with academic (Infectious Diseases, Emergency Medicine) and community pediatric clinicians (General Pediatrics) to explore clinicians' perspectives on how delayed schedules influence their clinical management of patients. The interview guide was based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. We analyzed interview transcripts using both an inductive and deductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The pediatric clinicians in our study overwhelmingly supported the recommended schedule, sought guidance on approaches to navigating conversations with vaccine hesitant families, and desired more evidence to effectively promote on-time vaccination. Clinicians described how delayed schedules have consequences for sick children (e.g., increased antibiotics, laboratory tests, emergency department visits) and healthy children (e.g., increased vaccine visits, out-of-pocket costs, fears among children receiving frequent shots). Clinicians stated that delayed schedules also negatively impact pediatric practices (e.g., increased time counseling patients, staff burden, clogged clinic space, unpredictable vaccine utilization, costs).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric clinicians perceive that delayed vaccine schedules negatively affect patients, pediatric practices, the healthcare system, and society. Future research should quantify the consequences of delayed schedules and identify strategies that promote vaccine adherence. Results from future studies can better support clinician-parent conversations about vaccine hesitancy, guide decision-makers about practice-level approaches to vaccine schedules, and advise payors and policymakers regarding vaccine-related policies.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Parental risk factors for fever in their children 7-10 days after the first dose of measles-containing vaccines

We evaluated whether parental clinical conditions were associated with fever after a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) in the child in a cohort study including 244,125 children born in Kaiser Permanente Northern California between 2009 and 2016 who received MCV between ages 1 and 2 years. Each child was linked with his/her mother and father when possible. Parental clinical conditions present before and after their child’s birth were identified. We defined fever in the children as clinic and emergency department visits with a fever code 7–10 days after a first dose of MCV (“MCV-associated fever”). We evaluated parental clinical conditions associated with MCV-associated fever using multivariate logistic regression analyses. After adjusting for multiple factors, including healthcare utilization, maternal fever [odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06–1.32], fever after MCV (OR = 5.90, 95% CI 1.35–25.78), respiratory infections (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.10–1.31), migraine (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05–1.24), syncope (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.27), and essential thrombocythemia (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.15–3.25) were significantly associated with MCV-associated fever. Paternal respiratory infections (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.05–1.27), fever associated with respiratory infections (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.23–1.76), and vitiligo (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.06–2.53) were significantly associated with MCV-associated fever. Parental clinical conditions, specifically fever alone and fever associated with respiratory infection, are associated with fever in their child 7–10 days after MCV.

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.

Vaccine Information Sources and Parental Trust in Their Child's Health Care Provider

BACKGROUND

Parental trust in their child's health care provider and the number and type of vaccine information sources are important dimensions of vaccine hesitancy and may suggest intervention components for future research.

METHOD

We conducted secondary analysis of survey data from mothers of healthy newborns in Washington State, and examined the association between parental trust in their child's health care provider and vaccine information sources.

RESULTS

We found that mothers with less trust in their child's health care provider used more sources, more informal sources, and were less likely to consider their child's pediatrician their main source of vaccine information compared with more trusting mothers. However, less trusting mothers did not report more effort to read or watch stories about vaccines than more trusting mothers, nor were they more likely to report the internet as their main vaccine information source.

CONCLUSIONS

Future interventions seeking to reduce parental vaccine hesitancy should consider intervention components focused on building or improving parent trust in their child's health care provider.

It's Complicated: The 2014-2015 U.S. Measles Outbreak and Parents' Vaccination Beliefs, Confidence, and Intentions

While it seems intuitive that highly visible vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks should impact perceptions of disease risk and facilitate vaccination, few empirical studies exist to confirm or dispel these beliefs. This study investigates the impact of the 2014-2015 Disneyland measles outbreak on parents' vaccination attitudes and future vaccination intentions. The analysis relies on a pair of public opinion surveys of American parents with at least one child under the age of six (N = 1,000 across each survey). Controlling for basic demographics, we found higher levels of reported confidence in the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccinations in our follow-up data collection. However, this confidence was also accompanied by elevated levels of concern toward childhood vaccines among American parents. We then examined how different subgroups in the population scored on these measures before and after the outbreak. We found that parents with high levels of interest in the topic of vaccines and a child who is not fully upto date with the recommended vaccination schedule reported more supportive attitudes toward vaccines. However, future intentions to follow the recommended vaccination schedule were not positively impacted by the outbreak. Possible explanations for these results and implications for vaccination outreach are discussed.

Trends in Vaccination Refusal in Children Under 2 Years of Age in Kedah, Malaysia: A 4-Year Review From 2013 to 2016

The current study examined how the trends in childhood vaccination refusal in Kedah, Malaysia, changed over a 4-year period (2013-2016). Data contributed by 60 public health centers were used to determine the annual incidence rates (per 1000 newborns) of vaccination refusal, and to identify the reasons for refusal among the mothers. The trend analysis revealed a 2.2-times increment in the incidence rates of vaccination refusal from 4.72 in 2013 to 10.51 in 2015, followed by a 52.2% reduction to 5.02 in 2016 ( P = .046). Besides, the proportion of mothers who refused vaccination because of religious belief reduced from 78% between 2013 and 2015 to 67.1% in 2016 ( P = .005). Overall, the finding confirms the positive impact of the educational and religious interventions introduced by the State Health Department of Kedah since January 2016; nonetheless, efforts to strengthen the existing strategies and thereby to maximize the vaccination coverage in Kedah are warranted.

What is 'confidence' and what could affect it?: A qualitative study of mothers who are hesitant about vaccines

BACKGROUND

Public confidence in immunization is critical to maintaining high vaccine-coverage rates needed to protect individuals and communities from vaccine-preventable diseases. Recent attention has been placed on factors influencing confidence in vaccination in the US and globally, but comprehensive understanding of what drives or hinders confidence in childhood vaccination is yet to be reached. As such, assessing parents' confidence in childhood vaccination and the ways in which educational materials affect confidence is needed.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to (1) learn how mothers who are hesitant about vaccination characterize confidence in health-related products for young children, including the recommended vaccines; (2) gain insights on what influences vaccine confidence beliefs; and (3) assess whether short, education materials affect parental confidence in childhood vaccinations.

METHODS

Eight moderator-lead focus groups (n=61), stratified by socioeconomic status, were undertaken with mothers of children 5years of age of less who are hesitant about vaccines. Four of the groups were held in the Philadelphia, PA area and four were held in the San Francisco/Oakland, CA area. Three educational material pairs, each consisting of a 2-3min video and an infographic poster about an immunization-related topic, were reviewed and assessed for influence on confidence.

RESULTS

Qualitative data analysis was used to identify overarching themes across the focus groups. Themes, insights, and illustrative quotes were identified and provided for each of the major discussion areas: primary health concerns for young children; confidence beliefs and perceptions, including for recommended vaccines; facilitators and barriers to confidence; and reactions to the educational materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Results provide helpful insights into how mothers who are hesitant about vaccines perceive confidence in childhood vaccines and health-related products, suggestions for how to improve confidence, and support for the value and use of short videos as part of vaccination education efforts. Findings can aid those developing vaccination education materials and resources designed to foster vaccine confidence.

Assessing misclassification of vaccination status: Implications for studies of the safety of the childhood immunization schedule

BACKGROUND

To address public concern about the safety of the childhood immunization schedule, the Institute of Medicine recommended observational studies comparing adverse health outcomes of fully vaccinated children to children under-vaccinated due to parental choice. Misclassification of vaccination status could bias such studies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess risk of misclassification of vaccination status within the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

DESIGN/METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in three phases. In phase 1, electronic health record (EHR) data were used to identify patterns of under-vaccination during the first 24months of life potentially due to parental choice. In phase 2, a random sample of records of under-vaccinated children was manually reviewed. In phase 3, a separate sample of parents were surveyed to assess whether EHR data accurately reflected their child's vaccination status. Phases 1 and 2 were conducted at 6 VSD sites, phase 3 at 1 site.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 361,901 children born 2004 through 2012. By 24months of age, 198,249 (54.8%) were fully vaccinated with no delays, 84,698 (23.4%) experienced delays but were fully vaccinated by 24months of age, 4865 (1.3%) received no vaccines, 3789 (1.0%) delayed starting vaccination until ≥4months of age, 4781 (1.3%) had consistent vaccine-limiting (≤2 vaccines per visit), and the remaining 65,519 (18.1%) were missing vaccine series or doses. When a diagnosis code for vaccine refusal was present in EHR data, encounter notes confirmed vaccine refusal as the reason for under-vaccination for nearly 100% of sampled records. Parent surveys confirmed these findings. Parents of under-vaccinated children were more likely to report visiting an alternative medical provider than parents of fully vaccinated children.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific groups of children, under-vaccinated due to parental choice, can be identified with relatively low likelihood of misclassification of vaccination status using EHR-based vaccine data and diagnosis codes.

Parents' Perspectives on How to Improve the Childhood Vaccination Process

Few national studies have asked parents how to improve the childhood vaccination process. We surveyed a nationally representative online panel of parents on how to improve this process, rationales for nonstandard approaches, and alternatives to the standard schedule. Twelve percent of the 1222 respondents reported using nonstandard approaches: 3.2% used a specific schedule, 6.0% had no specific schedule, and 2.5% declined all vaccinations. The most common rationales were that too many vaccines are given at once, and discomfort with vaccine ingredients. Regarding how to improve the process, parents using the standard schedule most often said nothing could be improved (51%), or better vaccine information (22%). Those using nonstandard approaches most often would have liked more choice (40%) or better vaccine information (26%). Parents' experiences with the vaccination process could be improved by offering information prior to visits, giving more information about side effects, and allowing more flexibility about vaccine scheduling.

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.

Parents' confidence in recommended childhood vaccinations: Extending the assessment, expanding the context

There has been significant and growing interest in vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the United States as well as across the globe. While studies have used confidence measures, few studies have provided in-depth assessments and no studies have assessed parents' confidence in vaccines in relationship to other frequently recommended health-related products for young children. This study used a nationally representative sample of 1000 US parents to identify confidence levels for recommended vaccinations, antibiotics, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines, and vitamins for children. The analyses examined associations between confidence ratings, vaccination behaviors and intentions, and trust in healthcare provider, along with associations between confidence ratings and use of the other health-related products. Parents' confidence in vaccines was relatively high and high relative to antibiotics, OTC medicines and vitamins. For all 4 health-related products examined, past product experience and knowledge of bad or adverse outcomes negatively impacted parents' confidence levels. Confidence levels were associated with both trust in advice from their child's healthcare provider and acceptance of healthcare provider recommendations. Parents in some groups, such as those with lower income and education levels, were more likely to have less confidence not just in vaccines, but also in antibiotics and OTC medicines for children. Overall, the findings extend understanding of vaccine confidence, including by placing it into a broader context.

HIV, breast cancer and vaccines: what do high-profile cases reveal about stakeholder engagement in research?

Substantially engaging stakeholders in research involves making extensive changes to the full life cycle of research, from the initial stage of selecting research priorities to the final stages of dissemination and implementation. Recent scholarship has explored logistical and methodological challenges, including the time, training and resources required for engagement. However, inadequate attention has been given to the intended ends or goals of engagement - what do we want engagement to achieve? An examination of historical case studies can yield important insights regarding engagement and its intended ends. Using historical perspective methods, we explore how clarity about the ends of engagement can inform the design of engagement efforts and lead to better outcomes. We present several lessons for improving stakeholder-engaged research.

Exploring the Reasons Behind Parental Refusal of Vaccines

Parental refusal of vaccines is a growing a concern for the increased occurrence of vaccine preventable diseases in children. A number of studies have looked into the reasons that parents refuse, delay, or are hesitant to vaccinate their child(ren). These reasons vary widely between parents, but they can be encompassed in 4 overarching categories. The 4 categories are religious reasons, personal beliefs or philosophical reasons, safety concerns, and a desire for more information from healthcare providers. Parental concerns about vaccines in each category lead to a wide spectrum of decisions varying from parents completely refusing all vaccinations to only delaying vaccinations so that they are more spread out. A large subset of parents admits to having concerns and questions about childhood vaccinations. For this reason, it can be helpful for pharmacists and other healthcare providers to understand the cited reasons for hesitancy so they are better prepared to educate their patients' families. Education is a key player in equipping parents with the necessary information so that they can make responsible immunization decisions for their children.

Unknown Risks

Objective. This qualitative study of a select sample of vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs) explores perceived and constructed personal judgments about the risks and uncertainties associated with vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and how these subjective risk judgments influence parents’ decisions about childhood vaccination. Methods. The study employed semistructured focus group interviews with 42 VHPs to elicit parents’ perceptions and thought processes regarding the risks associated with vaccination and nonvaccination, the sources of these perceptions, and their approach to decision making about vaccination for their children. Results. VHPs engage in various reasoning processes and tend to perceive risks of vaccination as greater than the risks of VPDs. At the same time, VHPs engage in other reasoning processes that lead them to perceive ambiguity in information about the harms of vaccination—citing concerns about the missing, conflicting, changing, or otherwise unreliable nature of information. Conclusions. VHPs’ refusal of vaccination may reflect their aversion to both the risk and ambiguity they perceive to be associated with vaccination. Mitigating this vaccine hesitancy likely requires reconstructing the risks and ambiguities associated with vaccination—a challenging task that requires providing parents with meaningful evidence-based information on the known risks of vaccination versus VPDs and explicitly acknowledging the risks that remain truly unknown.