Beliefs about childhood immunisation among Lebanese Muslim immigrants in Australia

An Intersectional Approach to Understanding Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Mental Health Issues Among Muslim Immigrant Women in Canada

Although addressing cultural and religious practices is important in providing mental health care, little research exists on understanding mental health issues of minority groups such as Muslim immigrant women. We employed an intersectional approach to examine beliefs and attitudes toward mental health issues among Muslim immigrant women in Canada. Four focus groups (21 participants) were conducted, and 101 surveys were collected in Ottawa, Canada. Three core themes emerged from thematic content analysis of focus group data that relate to participants' communication about: 1) stressors, 2) mental health care seeking, and 3) utilizing coping strategies. The survey data were analyzed using independent samples t-test and One-Way ANOVA, the results of which supported the qualitative findings that social stigma was an important obstacle preventing those women from seeking professional mental health services. Muslim women with South and Southeast Asian cultural/ethnic backgrounds were more likely to get help from professionals than those with African cultural/ethnic backgrounds. No group differences were found in age, family income, and employment status. Broadly, the findings underscore the importance of developing knowledge about the intersections among gender, religion, cultural identity, immigration status, and social stigma that influence beliefs and attitudes toward mental health issues. Specifically, the findings point to the need for an intersectional approach that offers a more nuanced understanding for tailoring mental health care to Muslim immigrant women's needs.

Defining drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy in refugee and migrant populations

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Some refugee and migrant populations globally showed lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and are also considered to be an under-immunized group for routine vaccinations. These communities may experience a range of barriers to vaccination systems, yet there is a need to better explore drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy in these mobile groups.

METHODS

We did a global rapid review to explore drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy to define strategies to strengthen both COVID-19 and routine vaccination uptake, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health PsycINFO and grey literature. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to identify drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy, and then categorized using the 'Increasing Vaccination Model'.

RESULTS

Sixty-three papers were included, reporting data on diverse population groups, including refugees, asylum seekers, labour migrants and undocumented migrants in 22 countries. Drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy pertaining to a wide range of vaccines were covered, including COVID-19 (n = 27), human papillomavirus (13), measles or Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) (3), influenza (3), tetanus (1) and vaccination in general. We found a range of factors driving under-immunization and hesitancy in refugee and migrant groups, including unique awareness and access factors that need to be better considered in policy and service delivery. Acceptability of vaccination was often deeply rooted in social and historical context and influenced by personal risk perception.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings hold direct relevance to current efforts to ensure high levels of global coverage for a range of vaccines and to ensure that marginalized refugee and migrant populations are included in the national vaccination plans of low-, middle- and high-income countries. We found a stark lack of research from low- and middle-income and humanitarian contexts on vaccination in mobile groups. This needs to be urgently rectified if we are to design and deliver effective programmes that ensure high coverage for COVID-19 and routine vaccinations.

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.

Barriers to immunization among newcomers: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is an effective way to prevent serious childhood illnesses, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. There are various reasons for this; some parents lack access because of poor quality health services, long distances or lack of money. Other parents may not trust vaccines or the healthcare workers who provide them, or they may not see the need for vaccination due to a lack of information or misinformation about how vaccinations work and the diseases they can prevent.Communication with parents about childhood vaccinations is one way of addressing these issues. Communication can take place at healthcare facilities, at home or in the community. Communication can be two-way, for example face-to-face discussions between parents and healthcare providers, or one-way, for instance via text messages, posters or radio programmes. Some types of communication enable parents to actively discuss vaccines and their benefits and harms, as well as diseases they can prevent. Other communication types simply give information about vaccination issues or when and where vaccines are available. People involved in vaccine programmes need to understand how parents experience different types of communication about vaccination and how this influences their decision to vaccinate.

OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the review were to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring: parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences regarding communication about childhood vaccinations and the manner in which it is communicated; and the influence that vaccination communication has on parents' and informal caregivers' decisions regarding childhood vaccination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-Index Citations (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), and Anthropology Plus (EbscoHost) databases for eligible studies from inception to 30 August 2016. We developed search strategies for each database, using guidelines developed by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group for searching for qualitative evidence as well as modified versions of the search developed for three related reviews of effectiveness. There were no date or geographic restrictions for the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on the views and experiences of parents and informal caregivers regarding information about vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where information about childhood vaccinations was communicated or distributed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used maximum variation purposive sampling for data synthesis, using a three-step sampling frame. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparison strategy for data extraction and synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. High confidence suggests that it is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest, while very low confidence indicates that it is not clear whether the review finding is a reasonable representation of it. Using a matrix model, we then integrated our findings with those from other Cochrane reviews that assessed the effects of different communication strategies on parents' knowledge, attitudes and behaviour about childhood vaccination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 studies, mostly from high-income countries, many of which explored mothers' perceptions of vaccine communication. Some focused on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.In general, parents wanted more information than they were getting (high confidence in the evidence). Lack of information led to worry and regret about vaccination decisions among some parents (moderate confidence).Parents wanted balanced information about vaccination benefits and harms (high confidence), presented clearly and simply (moderate confidence) and tailored to their situation (low confidence in the evidence). Parents wanted vaccination information to be available at a wider variety of locations, including outside health services (low confidence) and in good time before each vaccination appointment (moderate confidence).Parents viewed health workers as an important source of information and had specific expectations of their interactions with them (high confidence). Poor communication and negative relationships with health workers sometimes impacted on vaccination decisions (moderate confidence).Parents generally found it difficult to know which vaccination information source to trust and challenging to find information they felt was unbiased and balanced (high confidence).The amount of information parents wanted and the sources they felt could be trusted appeared to be linked to acceptance of vaccination, with parents who were more hesitant wanting more information (low to moderate confidence).Our synthesis and comparison of the qualitative evidence shows that most of the trial interventions addressed at least one or two key aspects of communication, including the provision of information prior to the vaccination appointment and tailoring information to parents' needs. None of the interventions appeared to respond to negative media stories or address parental perceptions of health worker motives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to several review findings. Further research, especially in rural and low- to middle-income country settings, could strengthen evidence for the findings where we had low or very low confidence. Planners should consider the timing for making vaccination information available to parents, the settings where information is available, the provision of impartial and clear information tailored to parental needs, and parents' perceptions of health workers and the information provided.

Socio-cultural perceptions of sudden infant death syndrome among migrant Indian mothers

AIM

To explore socio-cultural influences on migrant mother decisions and beliefs regarding co-sleeping as a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with five Indian-born women in a socio-economically disadvantaged suburb in the south-west of Sydney were conducted between September and December 2007. Transcripts were analysed using principles of discourse analysis.

RESULTS

Discourse analysis revealed that SIDS-related decisions and beliefs about co-sleeping as a risk factor for SIDS are constructed amid competing discourses of motherhood and child health. Mothers are either actively or unconsciously deciding how they negotiate or resist dominant Western discourses of motherhood and child health to make 'the best' health-related decisions for their children. Participants resisted acknowledging child sleep practices recommended by health practitioners, particularly recommendations to put to sleep the baby in its own cot. This resistance was expressed by constructing messages as 'inapplicable' and 'inappropriate'. Co-sleeping was constructed as a highly valued practice for its physical and social benefits to the child, mother and family by facilitating child security, breastfeeding, bonding and family connectedness.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates how decisions and behaviour are shaped by socio-cultural influences embedded in discourses and context. It also shows that in-depth investigation through a social constructivist lens is particularly useful for investigating influences on knowledge acquisition, interpretation and implementation among migrant groups. A greater appreciation of the social meanings and ideologies attached to behaviours can help to ensure that the correct messages reach the correct populations, and that child health outcomes can be achieved and maintained both for overseas and Australian-born populations.