The Influence of Provider Communication Behaviors on Parental Vaccine Acceptance and Visit Experience

Benefits, challenges, and strategies related to using presumptive recommendations for HPV vaccination: A qualitative study with rural and non-rural-serving primary care professionals

HPV vaccination coverage remains far below the national target of 80% among US adolescents, particularly in rural areas, which have vaccine uptake rates that are 10% points lower than non-rural areas on average. Primary care professionals (PCPs) can increase coverage by using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination in a way that assumes parents want to vaccinate. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored PCPs' experiences and perceptions of using presumptive recommendations in rural- and non-rural-serving primary care clinics in North Carolina. Thematic analysis revealed that most PCPs in rural and non-rural contexts used presumptive recommendations and felt the strategy was an effective and concise way to introduce the topic of HPV vaccination to parents. At the same time, some PCPs raised concerns about presumptive recommendations potentially straining relationships with certain parents, including those who had previously declined HPV vaccine or who distrust medical authority due to their past experiences with the healthcare system. PCPs dealt with these challenges by using a more open-ended approach when introducing HPV vaccination to parents. In conclusion, our findings suggest that PCPs in both rural and non-rural settings see value in using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination, but to adequately address concerns and ensure increased HPV vaccine uptake, PCPs can use simple and culturally sensitive language to ensure fully informed consent and to maintain parental trust. And to further strengthen HPV vaccine discussions, PCPs can utilize other effective HPV communication techniques, like the Announcement Approach, in discussing HPV vaccinations with hesitant parents.

Moral persuasion for value-laden objections to human papillomavirus vaccination

The martial art of jiu jitsu capitalizes on the strength of a sparring partner by redirecting their momentum. Jiu jitsu persuasion similarly redirects the concerns motivating an objection in a manner that undermines the objection. This method of persuasion effectively addresses criticisms that motivate vaccine hesitancy, including moral criticisms. Critics argue that human papillomavirus vaccination causes young women to become more promiscuous. Evidence undermines this objection, but such evidence fails to persuade many objectors because of countervailing moral concerns regarding promiscuity. Healthcare professionals, therefore, need to consider supplementing evidence with moral arguments against the objection, using a framework that appeals to the core values motivating vaccine objections. A jiu jitsu model of persuasion is one such framework. By employing a jiu jitsu model healthcare professionals can facilitate collaborative, normative discussion that persuades more objectors and fulfills healthcare professionals' obligations with respect to patient care vis-à-vis vaccination.

High-Stakes Treatment Negotiations Gone Awry: The Importance of Interactions for Understanding Treatment Advocacy and Patient Resistance

Doctors (and sociologists) have a long history of struggling to understand why patients seek medical help yet resist treatment recommendations. Explanations for resistance have pointed to macrostructural changes, such as the rise of the engaged patient or decline of physician authority. Rather than assuming that concepts such as resistance, authority, or engagement are exogenous phenomena transmitted via conversational conduits, we examine how they are dynamically co-constituted interactionally. Using conversation analysis to analyze a videotaped interaction of an oncology patient resisting the treatment recommendation even though she might die without treatment, we show how sustained resistance manifests in and through her doctor's actions. This paradox, in which the doctor can both recommend life-prolonging care and condition resistance to it, has broad relevance beyond cancer treatment; it also can help us to understand other doctor-patient decisional conflicts, for instance, medication nonadherence, delaying emergent care, and vaccine refusal.

Uptake among four indicated vaccines by adults aged 65 years and older in Japan, 2023

Various vaccinations are recommended for older adults; however, unlike childhood immunization programs, there is often no systematic immunization schedule for older adults, and management of the immunization schedule is the responsibility of the individuals. Self-managing immunization status can be challenging and potentially lead to missed vaccinations. This study aimed to describe the statuses and patterns of indicated vaccine uptake among older adults. This descriptive study utilized data from a large-scale nationwide internet survey in Japan (n = 6,828). Participants aged 65 years and older were asked about their immunization status for four vaccines in Japan: coronavirus disease 2019, influenza, pneumococcal, and herpes zoster vaccines. Overall, 6.8 % of the participants received all four vaccines, whereas 9.5 % had not received any of four vaccines. Many participants received one to three types of vaccinations (one type: 24.7 %, two types: 30.8 %, three types: 28.1 %). Attention should be focused on vaccine uptake among older adults.

How a 'good parent' decides on childhood vaccination. Demonstrating independence and deliberation during Dutch healthcare visits

Childhood vaccination consultations are considered an important phase in parents' decision-making process. To date, only a few empirical studies conducted in the United States have investigated real-life consultations. To address this gap, we recorded Dutch vaccination conversations between healthcare providers and parents during routine health consultations for their newborns. The data were analysed using Conversation Analysis and Discursive Psychology. We found that the topic of vaccination was often initiated with 'Have you already thought about vaccination?' (HYATAV), and that this formulation was consequential for parental identity work. Exploring the interactional trajectories engendered by this initiation format we show that: (1) interlocutors treat the question as consisting of two types of queries, (2) conversational trajectories differ according to which of the queries is attended to and that (3) parents work up a 'good parent' identity in response to HYATAV, by demonstrating that they think about their child's vaccination beforehand and make their decisions independently. Our findings shed new light on the interactional unfolding of parental vaccination decisions.

Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy: A Nursing Perspective

PURPOSE

Vaccination is one of the most successful and cost-effective health promotion interventions, preventing millions of deaths per year. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) received renewed attention in the United States when over 30 million Americans were undecided or had barriers to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The purpose is to examine the literature regarding vaccine hesitancy, its history and legal aspects.

DESIGN

An interprofessional team of a lawyer and two nurses reviewed the literature to synthesize the history of vaccine hesitancy and documented effective strategies to address disinformation, misinformation, and other barriers to vaccine uptake.

METHODS

The authors conducted a thorough review of the literature regarding vaccine hesitancy, including legal aspects.

FINDINGS

There is a scarcity of available literature regarding effective strategies, especially from the nursing perspective. Much of the literature on vaccine hesitancy dates back to the 1970's, offering few strategies to address this issue. Nursing implications and strategies to address vaccine hesitancy from a nursing perspective are provided, including an innovative example of preparing nursing students to address vaccine hesitancy through participation in a high-fidelity simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination uptake is impacted by misinformation and disinformation. Vaccine hesitancy is impacting the uptake of other routine immunizations putting Americans at risk. Regardless of vaccination policies, health care professionals must be prepared to communicate with people who have a wide range of VH. Strategies such as providing accurate information, addressing patient concerns, and reducing barriers to access decrease VH.

The coverage of influenza vaccination and predictors of influenza non-vaccination in Danish cancer patients: A nationwide register-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended and provided free-of-charge to Danish citizens aged ≥65 years and to individuals with acquired immunodeficiency. We aimed to estimate influenza vaccination coverage and investigate predictors of influenza non-vaccination in Danish cancer patients.

METHODS

A nationwide cohort study of all Danish citizens aged ≥18 years with an incident cancer diagnosis between 2002 and 2017. Using national registries, we assessed information on influenza vaccination and potential predictors of influenza non-vaccination. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of influenza non-vaccination for patients aged <65 years and ≥65 years.

RESULTS

We observed 269,863 patients during 840,876 influenza vaccination seasons. The influenza vaccination coverage was 14 % for cancer patients <65 years and 51 % for those ≥65 years. No influenza vaccination in the previous season was associated with non-vaccination in the current season (<65 years: aPR = 2.75, 95 %CI = 2.71-2.80; ≥65 years: aPR = 5.15, 95 %CI = 5.10-5.21). Haematological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy had lower vaccination prevalence compared with those not receiving chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The influenza vaccination coverage was low among cancer patients. Influenza non-vaccination in the previous season was the strongest predictor of not receiving influenza vaccination in the current season. Haematological cancer patients on current chemotherapy had lower vaccination prevalence than those not currently receiving chemotherapy.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

Implementation challenges and real-world impacts of switching pediatric vaccines: A global systematic literature review

Switching a vaccine for another on a pediatric national immunization program is often done for the betterment of society. However, if poorly implemented, switching vaccines could result in suboptimal transitions with negative effects. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the existing knowledge from identifiable documents on implementation challenges of pediatric vaccine switches and the real-world impact of those challenges. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. We synthesized three themes: vaccine availability, vaccination program deployment, and vaccine acceptability. Switching pediatric vaccines can pose unforeseen challenges to health-care systems worldwide and additional resources are often required to overcome those challenges. Yet, the magnitude of the impact, especially economic and societal, was frequently under-researched with variability in reporting. Therefore, an efficient vaccine switch requires a thorough consideration of the added benefits of replacing the existing vaccine, preparation, planning, additional resource allocation, implementation timing, public-private partnerships, outreach campaigns, and surveillance for program evaluation.

Optimizing timing of adolescent vaccines: Impact of initiating HPV vaccination before Tdap or meningococcal vaccination on timely completion of the HPV vaccine series

To explore the impact on timely series completion of initiating the HPV vaccine series prior to other vaccines in the adolescent platform (Tdap or meningococcal vacccines), we created a cohort of children aged 9 in 2015 who were continuously enrolled through the age of 13 (2019) from a national administrative database of employee-sponsored insurance in the United States (MarketScan). Logistic regressions were used to predict the odds of HPV vaccine series completion among those who started the series prior to, concurrent with, or after receiving Tdap or meningococcal vaccination. The cohort included 100,857 eligible children. Compared with adolescents who received their HPV and Tdap or HPV and meningococcal vaccinations concurrently, those who received HPV prior to other vaccines had higher completion (aOR = 1.38 for Tdap, aOR 1.62 for meningococcal), while those who received their HPV vaccination after other vaccines had lower odds of HPV vaccine series completion (aOR = 0.68 for Tdap, aOR = 0.62 for meningococcal). Other factors associated with series completion included female sex, residing in an urban (vs. rural) area, residing in the Northeast, and receiving primary care from a pediatrician (vs. family medicine physician). These data indicate that beginning the HPV vaccine series prior to the adolescent platform may improve on-time series completion.

Determinants of parental vaccine hesitancy in Canada: results from the 2017 Childhood National Immunization Coverage Survey

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated vaccine hesitancy as one of the ten leading threats to global health. Vaccine hesitancy exists when vaccination services are available and accessible, but vaccine uptake is lower than anticipated. It is often attributed to lack of trust in vaccine safety and effectiveness, or low level of concern about the risk of many vaccine-preventable diseases. This study aimed to examine the sociodemographic factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusal in Canada using data from the 2017 Childhood National Immunization Coverage Survey (CNICS).

METHOD

The 2017 CNICS was a cross-sectional and nationally representative survey to estimate national vaccine uptake and to collect information about parents' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs (KAB) regarding vaccination. Using the KAB questions, parental vaccine hesitancy (i.e., parental hesitation, delay or refusal of at least one recommended vaccination) and refusal (i.e., unvaccinated children) by sociodemographic factors was estimated using weighted prevalence proportions. A multinomial logistic regression model was fitted to examine associations between parental vaccine hesitancy or refusal and sociodemographic factors among parents of two-year-old children in Canada. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of being vaccine-hesitant or vaccine-refusing versus being non-vaccine-hesitant were generated.

RESULTS

Both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions models showed that parents with lower household income (aOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.5), and those with a higher number of children in the household (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.5) had higher vaccine hesitancy. Conversely, lower vaccine hesitancy was observed among non-immigrant parents (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6). In addition, lower household income (aOR 4.0, 95% CI 1.3-12.9), and higher number of children in the household (aOR 6.9, 95% CI 2.1-22.9) were significantly associated with parental vaccine refusal. Regional variations were also observed.

CONCLUSION

Several sociodemographic determinants are associated with parental vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The findings of the study could help public health officials and policymakers to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve childhood vaccination programs.

Moral foundations and HPV vaccine acceptance in the United States: State, parental, and individual factors

RATIONALE

Appeals to intuitive morality may present a novel approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the relationship between morality and vaccination by employing Moral Foundations Theory to studies surrounding the HPV vaccination at multiple different levels of decision making.

METHOD

We employed three different study modalities which examined moralities link to vaccination by employing Moral Foundations Theory. A state-wide ecological study aimed to understand population level trends. Two randomized control interventional studies were then created to understand the effects of Moral Foundations Theory based interventions on both parents of children and individual decision makers.

RESULTS

We demonstrated a negative association at the state level between the purity moral foundations and HPV vaccination rates (β = -.75, SE 0.23; p < .01) and a positive association between loyalty and HPV vaccination rates (β = 0.62 SE 0.24; p < .05). The parental study built upon this by demonstrating negative association between higher moral purity scores and attitudes towards the HPV vaccine and intention to vaccinate their children (β = -0.27 SE 0.07; p < .001). Our final study demonstrated a Moral Foundations Theory based intervention was associated with an increase in the odds of indicating an intention to receive the HPV vaccination (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 2.59, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.62-4.14). This equates to a 20% increase in the predicted probability of the intention to receive an HPV vaccine (39% CI (36%-42%) vs 60% CI (57%-63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Together, these studies demonstrate that moral foundations, specifically the purity foundation, appear to have a strong and consistent relationship with HPV vaccination. They also demonstrate the how moral values-based interventions may serve as a novel approach to increase HPV vaccine uptake with potential to be employed to target vaccine hesitancy more broadly.

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.

Beyond Information Provision: Analysis of the Roles of Structure and Agency in COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in Ethnic Minority Communities

People from Black and Asian backgrounds are more likely to die from COVID-19 but less likely to be vaccinated, threatening to exacerbate health inequalities already experienced by ethnic minority groups. The literature suggests that mistrust rooted in structural inequality (including socioeconomic position and experience of racism) may be a key barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Understanding and addressing structural inequality is likely to lead to longer-term impacts than information alone. The aim of this study is to draw on health and sociological theories of structure and agency to inform our understanding of how structural factors influence vaccine confidence. We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 22 people from London and the surrounding areas from December 2021 to March 2022. Fourteen participants were members of the public from ethnic minority backgrounds, and seven were professionals working with the public to address concerns and encourage vaccine uptake. Our findings suggest that people from ethnic minority backgrounds make decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination based on a combination of how they experience external social structures (including lack of credibility and clarity from political authority, neglect by health services, and structural racism) and internal processes (weighing up COVID-19 vaccine harms and benefits and concerns about vaccine development and deployment). We may be able to support knowledge accumulation through the provision of reliable and accessible information, particularly through primary and community care, but we recommend a number of changes to research, policy and practice that address structural inequalities. These include working with communities to improve ethnicity data collection, increasing funding allocation to health conditions where ethnic minority communities experience poorer outcomes, greater transparency and public engagement in the vaccine development process, and culturally adapted research recruitment processes.

COVID-19 Booster Dose Reminder/Recall for Adolescents: Findings From a Health-Care System in Wisconsin

PURPOSE

This study assessed efficacy of one-time COVID-19 booster reminder/recall for booster eligible adolescents in a health-care system in Wisconsin.

METHODS

COVID-19 booster eligible patients aged 12-17 years were randomized 1:1 to receive one reminder/recall message from the health-care system using the parent's preferred communication method (intervention) or no reminder/recall (usual care) in May 2022.

RESULTS

Reminder/recall was sent to 2,146/4,296 (50%) adolescent patients. During the 90-day evaluation period following randomization, booster dose receipt was 2.0 percentage points (CI: 0.3%-3.7%) higher in the intervention (10.0%) versus usual care groups (8.0%). Among patients with ≥1 preventive visit during the evaluation period, uptake was 7.5 percentage points higher in the intervention (16.4%) versus usual care groups (8.9%).

DISCUSSION

A single COVID-19 booster dose reminder/recall resulted in a small but statistically significant increase in booster dose receipt, though uptake overall was low. Additional strategies are needed to increase uptake.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine confidence among primary care providers in Kazakhstan, March-April 2021

Introduction

Vaccination is a critical public health intervention, and vaccine hesitancy is a major threat. Globally, confidence in COVID-19 vaccines has been low, and rates of routine immunizations decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because healthcare providers are a trusted source of information on vaccination in Kazakhstan, it was vital to understand their knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) related to both routine and COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

From March to April 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional study among the healthcare providers responsible for vaccination in 54 primary care facilities in three cities in Kazakhstan. All consenting providers anonymously completed structured online questionnaires at their place of work. A provider was classified as having COVID-19 vaccine confidence if they planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine, believed that COVID-19 vaccines are important to protect their community and either believed the vaccine was important to protect themselves or believed that getting a vaccine was safer than getting COVID-19. Statistical analysis included chi-square, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and Poisson regression.

Results

Of 1,461 providers, 30% had COVID-19 vaccine confidence, 40% did not, and 30% would refuse vaccination. Participants were mostly female (92%) and ≤ 35 years old (57%). Additionally, 65% were nurses, 25% were family physicians, and 10% were pediatricians. Adequate KAP for routine vaccines was low (22, 17, and 32%, respectively). Adequate knowledge was highest among pediatricians (42%) and family physicians (28%) and lowest among nurses (17%). Misconceptions about vaccines were high; 54% believed that influenza vaccines cause flu, and 57% believed that there is a scientifically proven association between vaccination and autism and multiple sclerosis. About half (45%) of the practitioners felt confident answering patient vaccine-related concerns. In adjusted models, COVID-19 vaccine confidence was positively associated with adequate knowledge of vaccines (prevalence ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.4) and adequate attitudes related to routine vaccines (3.1, 2.7-3.6).

Conclusion

Our study uncovers critical areas for interventions to improve KAP related to routine immunizations and COVID-19 vaccine confidence among providers in Kazakhstan. The complex relationship between KAP of routine vaccines and COVID-19 vaccine confidence underscores the importance of addressing vaccine hesitancy more broadly and not focusing solely on COVID-19.

Evaluation of online videos to engage viewers and support decision-making for COVID-19 vaccination: how narratives and race/ethnicity enhance viewer experiences

Background

Vaccine hesitancy has hampered the control of COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Methods

We conducted a national internet-based, quasi-experimental study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine informational videos. Participants received an informational animated video paired with the randomized assignment of (1) a credible source (differing race/ethnicity) and (2) sequencing of a personal narrative before or after the video addressing their primary vaccine concern. We examined viewing time and asked video evaluation questions to those who viewed the full video.

Results

Among 14,235 participants, 2,422 (17.0%) viewed the full video. Those who viewed a personal story first (concern video second) were 10 times more likely to view the full video (p < 0.01). Respondent-provider race/ethnicity congruence was associated with increased odds of viewing the full video (aOR: 1.89, p < 0.01). Most viewers rated the informational video(s) to be helpful, easy to understand, trustworthy, and likely to impact others' vaccine decisions, with differences by demographics and also vaccine intentions and concerns.

Conclusion

Using peer-delivered, personal narrative, and/or racially congruent credible sources to introduce and deliver vaccine safety information may improve the openness of vaccine message recipients to messages and engagement.

How to make effective HPV vaccine recommendations starting at age 9

This article provides best and promising practices for recommending HPV vaccination at age 9 as a way to ensure high uptake. An effective method for recommending HPV vaccination is the Announcement Approach, which consists of 3 evidence-based steps. The first step, Announce, involves noting that the child is 9 years old, saying they are due for a vaccine that prevents 6 HPV cancers, and saying you'll vaccinate today. This adapted version of the Announce step simplifies the bundled approach used at ages 11-12 that emphasizes the prevention of meningitis and whooping cough in addition to HPV cancers. For hesitant parents, the second step, Connect and Counsel, involves finding common ground with the parent and communicating the value of starting HPV vaccination at the first opportunity. Finally, for parents who decline, the third step is to Try Again at a later visit. Using the Announcement Approach at age 9 stands to increase HPV vaccine uptake, save time, and lead to high family and provider satisfaction.

'They've all endorsed it…but I'm just not there:' a qualitative exploration of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy reported by Black and Latinx individuals

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine reasons for vaccine hesitancy among online communities of US-based Black and Latinx communities to understand the role of historical racism, present-day structural racism, medical mistrust and individual concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using narrative and interpretive phenomenological analysis of online bulletin board focus groups.

SETTING

Bulletin boards with a focus-group-like setting in an online, private, chat-room-like environment.

PARTICIPANTS

Self-described vaccine hesitant participants from US-based Black (30) and Latinx (30) communities designed to reflect various axes of diversity within these respective communities in the US context.

RESULTS

Bulletin board discussions covered a range of topics related to COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccine hesitant participants expressed fears about vaccine safety and doubts about vaccine efficacy. Elements of structural racism were cited in both groups as affecting populations but not playing a role in individual vaccine decisions. Historical racism was infrequently cited as a reason for vaccine hesitancy. Individualised fears and doubts about COVID-19 (short-term and long-term) safety and efficacy dominated these bulletin board discussions. Community benefits of vaccination were not commonly raised among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

While this suggests that addressing individually focused fear and doubts are central to overcoming COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Black and Latinx groups, addressing the effects of present-day structural racism through a focus on community protection may also be important.

The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vaccination Hesitancy: A Viewpoint

Vaccination hesitancy is considered by the World Health Organization as a danger to global health. In recent years, vaccine hesitancy rates to COVID-19 have been studied worldwide. In our study, we aim to provide an overview of the concept of vaccine hesitancy, with regard to the post-COVID era, and to provide prevention and management strategies. A search of the international literature until March 2023 was conducted in the PubMed database. The 5723 papers found were divided into two groups: prior to the COVID-19 era and from 2021 onward. Papers about the vaccine hesitation phenomenon are becoming more common during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and following the marketing that the vaccine companies have carried out on the different types of COVID-19 vaccines. It is advisable that healthcare authorities, at the national and international level, as well as healthcare professionals, at the local level, should promote a series of activities to reduce the vaccine hesitancy rate.

Medical and public health professionals' perceived facilitators and barriers of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among African American adolescents in Shelby County, Tennessee

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infects nearly 85% of sexually active Americans during their lifetime, causing most cervical and five other cancers. Routine HPV vaccination is recommended for adolescents to prevent HPV-attributable cancers, but HPV vaccination coverage remains low, especially in Tennessee. In 2021, 54.6% of the population in Shelby County, Tennessee was Black or African American, reporting higher rates of new cervical cancer cases than other counties in Tennessee. While medical and public health professionals (HPs) play a critical role in promoting vaccination coverage, little is known about the factors HPs perceive to influence HPV vaccination for this population. This study sought to explore HPs' perceived facilitators and barriers of HPV vaccination among African American adolescents. Qualitative individual interviews with 26 HPs in Shelby County were conducted between October 2019 and February 2020. Interpretive content analysis of the interview data guided by the socio-ecological model revealed several important themes regarding the facilitators and barriers across the individual, interpersonal, and community levels. At the individual level, parental vaccine hesitancy emerged as a leading barrier to HPV vaccination, while appropriate education facilitated the vaccination. At the interpersonal level, a lack of strong provider recommendations impeded HPV vaccination, whereas improved communication skills with patients facilitated the vaccination. Finally, the community-level barriers included a lack of education and social/religious norms; the community-level facilitators included community outreach efforts. HPs should consider development of comprehensive community-based approaches that leverage the facilitators and barriers at multiple levels to increase HPV vaccination among African American adolescents in this region.

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine among pediatric patients with sickle cell disease and their caregivers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate attitudes toward vaccination and vaccine uptake regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) and their caregivers.

PROCEDURE

Adolescent patients and caregivers of children with SCD were surveyed during routine clinic visits; we then conducted a logistic regression analysis to understand differences in vaccine status, while qualitative responses were coded thematically.

RESULTS

Among respondents, the overall vaccination rate among adolescents and caregivers was 49% and 52%, respectively. Among the unvaccinated, 60% and 68% of adolescents and caregivers, respectively, preferred to remain unvaccinated, most commonly due to lack of perceived personal benefit from vaccination or mistrust in the vaccine. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that child's age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-1.2, p < .01) and caregiver education (measured by the Economic Hardship Index [EHI] score, OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.74-0.78, p < .05) were independent predictors of getting vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

Despite the increased risk of severe illness due to COVID-19 in patients with SCD, vaccine hesitancy remains high in this population of families whose children have SCD. Fortunately, the reasons cited for deferring vaccination among those who are unvaccinated were largely due to barriers that may be overcome with quality communication around the utility of the vaccine and information about vaccine safety.

Emergency preparedness is a healthcare issue: COVID-19 pandemic's influence on attitudes and behaviors among a national sample of parents

BACKGROUND

Improving household emergency preparedness (EP) is a public health priority, yet little is known about what influence the COVID-19 pandemic had on families' EP. This study aimed to explore current EP attitudes and behaviors.

METHODS

We conducted online focus groups in Winter 2022 with a nationwide sample of parents of adolescents. We held six 90-min focus groups of 9-15 participants using a semi-structured interview script that elicited parental knowledge and attitudes related to household EP. Two researchers conducted qualitative content analysis on focus group transcripts. First-level coding within and across scripts was used to identify broad categories or themes regarding EP. The process was reviewed continuously to verify data and coding procedures. Three investigators independently verified the final themes that emerged.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 64) were mostly female (n = 54, 84.3%), white (n = 46, 71.9%), and college-educated (n = 49, 76.6%). Major themes included: 1) Expanded awareness and behavioral change related to EP due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 2) Reconceptualization of planning for family health as part of EP, 3) Changing perspectives related to vaccination as a component of EP, and 4) Perspectives related to discussing EP with their health care provider.

CONCLUSIONS

EP was described as a healthcare issue and healthcare providers were identified as trusted sources of EP information. Interventions to support providers' ability to assist with individual EP health action plans, including discussing vaccination as part of preparedness are needed.

Communication strategies to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation uptake among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Developing countries face the greatest cervical cancer disease burden and mortality with suboptimal immunisation uptake. This review explores the communication strategies adopted, successes, challenges and lessons learnt in sub-Saharan countries to enhance human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Hinari, Cochrane Library, Trip database, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and seven grey resources were searched through May 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included observational studies addressing communication strategies for HPV immunisation uptake.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were done in duplicate to enhance validity of the results. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Findings were summarised and synthesised qualitatively.

RESULTS

Communication intervention to facilitate decision-making achieved uptake rate of 100% (95% CI 0.99% to 1.00%), followed by intervention to enable communication, which achieved 92% (95% CI 0.92% to 0.92%). Communication intervention to inform and educate achieved 90% (95% CI 0.90% to 0.90%).Targeting both healthcare workers and community leaders with the communication intervention achieved 95% (95% CI 0.91% to 0.98%), while teachers and school boards achieved 92% (95% CI 0.84% to 1.01%). Targeting policymakers achieved 86% (95% CI 0.78% to 0.93%).Based on the method of communication intervention delivery, use of training achieved an uptake rate of 85% (95% CI 0.84% to 0.87%); similarly, drama and dance achieved 85% (95% CI 0.84% to 0.86%). However, use of information, education and communication materials achieved 82% (95% CI 0.78% to 0.87%).

CONCLUSION

HPV vaccine communication is critical in ensuring that the community understands the importance of vaccination. The most effective communication strategies included those which educate the population about the HPV vaccine, facilitate decision-making on vaccine uptake and community ownership of the vaccination process immunisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021243683.

Clinician Communication to Address Vaccine Hesitancy

There are several factors that influence childhood vaccine uptake. Pediatric clinicians play a particularly influential role in parent vaccine decision-making. It is critical therefore that pediatric clinicians have a "communication toolbox"--a set of effective, evidence-based communication strategies to facilitate uptake of childhood vaccines--that they can use in conversations with parents about vaccines. In this article, recent advances in our understanding of what constitutes effective clinician vaccine communication with parents are discussed.

Development of PIVOT with MI: A motivational Interviewing-Based vaccine communication training for pediatric clinicians

Delay or refusal of childhood vaccines is common and may be increasing. Pediatricians are parents' most trusted source for vaccine information, yet many struggle with how to communicate with parents who resist recommended vaccines. Evidence-based communication strategies for vaccine conversations are lacking. In this manuscript, we describe the development and perceived usefulness of a curriculum to train clinicians on a specific vaccine communication strategy as part of the PIVOT with MI study, a cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of this communication strategy on increasing childhood vaccination uptake among 24 pediatric practices in Colorado and Washington. The communication strategy is based on the existing evidence-based communication strategies of a presumptive format for initiating vaccine conversations and use of motivational interviewing if hesitancy persists. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews with pediatric clinicians helped inform the development of the training curriculum, which consisted of an introductory video module followed by 3 training sessions. Between September 2019 and January 2021, 134 pediatric clinicians (92 pediatricians, 42 advanced practice providers) participated in the training as part of the PIVOT with MI study. Of these, 92 % viewed an introductory video module, 93 % attended or viewed a baseline synchronous training, 82 % attended or viewed a 1st refresher training, and 77 % attended or viewed a 2nd refresher training. A follow-up survey was administered August 2020 through March 2021; among respondents (n = 100), >95 % of participants reported that each component of the training program was very or somewhat useful. These data suggest that the PIVOT with MI training intervention is a useful vaccine communication resource with the potential for high engagement among pediatric clinicians.

Improving Vaccination Rates in the Clinical Setting

Pediatric providers can consider using the 5 P's paradigm for process improvement to optimize vaccination rates in the clinical settings: People, Processes, Pharmacy principles, Pain prevention, and Presumptive vaccine communications. Maintaining high clinical setting vaccination rates requires hiring and training the right people with vaccination details for the population being served, perfecting safe vaccine delivery processes including when and where to vaccinate, using pharmacy principles for proper vaccine storage and handling, operationalizing proper pain prevention for consistent care, and providing clear presumptive vaccine communications for success. A dedicated role of Vaccine Specialist or a clearly defined Vaccine Champion serves as the content expert of the 5 P's in the clinical setting who is critical to improving and sustaining high vaccination rates. The 5 P's Checklist for increased vaccination rates can be a tool for success in achieving and sustaining high vaccination rates in clinical settings such as ambulatory clinics, pharmacies, and school-based vaccination events. [Pediatr Ann. 2023;52(3):e89-e95.].

Cluster analysis of adults unvaccinated for COVID-19 based on behavioral and social factors, National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module, United States

By the end of 2021, approximately 15% of U.S. adults remained unvaccinated against COVID-19, and vaccination initiation rates had stagnated. We used unsupervised machine learning (K-means clustering) to identify clusters of unvaccinated respondents based on Behavioral and Social Drivers (BeSD) of COVID-19 vaccination and compared these clusters to vaccinated participants to better understand social/behavioral factors of non-vaccination. The National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collects data on U.S. adults from September 26-December 31,2021 (n = 187,756). Among all participants, 51.6% were male, with a mean age of 61 years, and the majority were non-Hispanic White (62.2%), followed by Hispanic (17.2%), Black (11.9%), and others (8.7%). K-means clustering procedure was used to classify unvaccinated participants into three clusters based on 9 survey BeSD items, including items assessing COVID-19 risk perception, social norms, vaccine confidence, and practical issues. Among unvaccinated adults (N = 23,397), 3 clusters were identified: the "Reachable" (23%), "Less reachable" (27%), and the "Least reachable" (50%). The least reachable cluster reported the lowest concern about COVID-19, mask-wearing behavior, perceived vaccine confidence, and were more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with no health conditions, from rural counties, have previously had COVID-19, and have not received a COVID-19 vaccine recommendation from a healthcare provider. This study identified, described, and compared the characteristics of the three unvaccinated subgroups. Public health practitioners, healthcare providers and community leaders can use these characteristics to better tailor messaging for each sub-population. Our findings may also help inform decisionmakers exploring possible policy interventions.

Messaging preferences among Florida caregivers participating in focus groups who had not yet accepted the HPV vaccine for their 11- to 12-year-old child

BACKGROUND

In the United States, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates remain low. The President's Cancer Panel suggests that effective messaging about the HPV vaccination focus on the vaccine's safety, efficacy, ability to prevent cancer, and recommendation at ages 11- to 12-years. We aimed to develop messages about HPV vaccine that include the President Cancer Panel's suggestions and were acceptable to caregivers of adolescents.

METHODS

From August to October 2020, we conducted one-hour, Zoom videoconference focus groups with caregivers who lived in Florida, had an 11- to 12-year-old child, and had not had any of their children receive the HPV vaccine. Focus group moderators asked caregivers to react to three videos of clinician (i.e., MD, DO, APRN, PA) recommendations and three text message reminders. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method and led by one author with qualitative analysis expertise. Two additional authors validated findings.

RESULTS

Caregivers (n = 25 in six groups) were primarily non-Hispanic white (84%) and educated (64% had at least an Associate's degree). Approximately a third of caregivers had delayed (44%) or decided against a vaccine for their child (36%). Caregivers described six preferred message approaches: recognize caregivers' autonomy, balanced benefits and risks, trustworthy sources, increased feasibility of appointment scheduling, information prior to decision point, and preferred personalized information. Caregivers expressed a desire to have the follow-up doses mentioned in the introduction.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccine messages, whether delivered by a clinician or via text message, will be more acceptable to caregivers if they approach HPV vaccination as the caregivers' decision, and include information from trusted sources to help caregivers make an informed choice.

Trends in adolescent COVID-19 vaccination receipt and parental intent to vaccinate their adolescent children, United States, July to October, 2021

INTRODUCTION

There was a five-fold increase in COVID-19 hospitalization case counts among children and adolescents between June and October 2021. However, polls suggest that adolescent COVID-19 vaccination coverage has plateaued in the United States.

METHODS

Using the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, we assessed trends in COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents ages 12-17 years, parents' intention to vaccinate their adolescent children, and their reasons for not intending to vaccinate their children from July to October 2021 using a large, nationally representative survey of U.S. households (n = 59,424). Trends in COVID-19 adolescent vaccination coverage, nationally and by sociodemographic characteristics, factors associated with adolescent vaccination status and parental intent to vaccinate their adolescent children, as well as changes in reasons for non-vaccination were examined using regression models.

RESULTS

Receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased five percentage points, from 56% (July) to 61% (October), with significant increases across most sociodemographic variables. However, there were no significant changes in parental intention to vaccinate their adolescent children during the same time period. Approximately one-quarter of parents were unsure about or reluctant to vaccinate their children, which remained consistent from July to October. Among those who had not vaccinated their children, lack of trust in the government and vaccines, and the belief that the COVID-19 vaccine is not needed or effective, was higher in October compared to July.

CONCLUSIONS

Parental intention to vaccinate their children has remained relatively stable throughout the late summer and early fall of 2021. Encouraging paediatricians to discuss the importance and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, addressing concerns and misinformation, as well as recommending and offering vaccines are important for increasing parental confidence in vaccines as well as vaccination uptake among adolescents.KEY MESSAGEReceipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased five percentage points, from 56% (July) to 61% (October), with significant increases across most sociodemographic variables.Approximately one quarter of parents were unsure about or reluctant to vaccinate their children, which remained consistent from July to October.Encouraging paediatricians to discuss the importance and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, addressing concerns and misinformation, as well as recommending and offering vaccines is important for increasing parental confidence in vaccines as well as vaccination uptake among adolescents.

Geographic Heterogeneity in Behavioral and Social Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination vary across the U.S. To inform vaccination outreach efforts, this study explores geographic variation in correlates of COVID-19 nonvaccination among adults.

METHODS

Participants were a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults identified through random-digit dialing for the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module. Analyses examined the geographic and temporal landscape of constructs in the Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination Framework among unvaccinated respondents from May 2021 to December 2021 (n=531,798) and sociodemographic and geographic disparities and Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination predictors of COVID-19 nonvaccination from October 2021 to December 2021 (n=187,756).

RESULTS

National coverage with at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine was 79.3% by December 2021, with substantial geographic heterogeneity. Regions with the largest proportion of unvaccinated persons who would probably get a COVID-19 vaccine or were unsure resided in the Southeast and Midwest (Health and Human Services Regions 4 and 5). Both regions had similar temporal trends regarding concerns about COVID-19 and confidence in vaccine importance, although the Southeast had especially low confidence in vaccine safety in December 2021, lowest in Florida (5.5%) and highest in North Carolina (18.0%). The strongest Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination correlate of not receiving a COVID-19 vaccination was lower confidence in COVID-19 vaccine importance (adjusted prevalence ratio=5.19, 95% CI=4.93, 5.47; strongest in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mountain West and weakest in the Southeast and Midwest). Other Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination correlates also varied by region.

CONCLUSIONS

Contributors to nonvaccination showed substantial geographic heterogeneity. Strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccination uptake may need to be tailored regionally.

Understanding Canadians' knowledge, attitudes and practices related to antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic use: Results from public opinion research

Background

Antimicrobial resistance is a current and pressing issue in Canada. Population-level antibiotic consumption is a key driver. The Public Health Agency of Canada undertook a comprehensive assessment of the Canadian public's knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic use, to help inform the implementation of public awareness and knowledge mobilization.

Methods

Data were collected in three phases: 1) six in-person focus groups (53 participants) to help frame the survey; 2) nationwide survey administration to 1,515 Canadians 18 years and older via cell phone and landline; and 3) 12 online focus groups to analyze survey responses. Survey data is descriptive.

Results

A third (33.9%) of survey respondents reported using antibiotics at least once in the previous 12 months, 15.8% more than twice and 4.6% more than five times. Antibiotic use was reported more among 1) those with a household income below $60,000, 2) those with a medical condition, 3) those without a university education and 4) among the youngest adults (18-24 years of age) and (25-34 years of age). Misinformation about antibiotics was common: 32.5% said antibiotics "can kill viruses"; 27.9% said they are "effective against colds and flu"; and 45.8% said they are "effective in treating fungal infections". Inaccurate information was reported more often by those 1) aged 18-24 years, 2) with a high school degree or less and 3) with a household income below $60,000. In focus groups, the time/money trade-offs involved in accessing medical care were reported to contribute to pushing for a prescription or using unprescribed antibiotics, particularly in more remote contexts, while the cost of a prescription contributed to sharing and using old antibiotics. A large majority, across all demographic groups, followed the advice of medical professionals in making health decisions.

Conclusion

High trust in medical professionals presents an important opportunity for knowledge mobilization. Delayed prescriptions may alleviate concerns about the time/money constraints of accessing future care. Consideration should be given to prioritizing access to appropriate diagnostic and other technology for northern and/or remote communities and/or medical settings serving many young children to alleviate concerns of needing a prescription or of needing to return later.

Impact of a Virtual Reality Curriculum on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Pilot Trial

Although the strongest predictor of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is a high-quality recommendation, physicians often provide weak recommendations. Thus, the authors developed Virtual Immersive Communication Training on Recommending Immunizations (VICTORI), a virtual reality (VR)‒based intervention that provided physicians the opportunity to deliberately practice recommendation behaviors. VICTORI included VR simulations during which participants counseled caregiver avatars hesitant to vaccinate. Before participation in VICTORI, participants reviewed a smartphone application on recommendation behaviors. A nonrandomized control trial of VICTORI was conducted with licensed and resident physicians. The intervention group completed the application and VICTORI simulations, whereas a comparison group completed only the application. The hypothesis was that HPV vaccination rates would increase for patients in the intervention group. The preintervention period was defined as the 6 months before allocated training (February 1, 2020-July 31, 2020), and the postintervention period was the 6 months after (October 1, 2020-March 31, 2021). The primary outcome was a change in the rates of human papillomavirus vaccine initiation among eligible patients presenting to clinic before and after. Of 142 eligible physicians, 134 (94%) chose to participate, with 93 of /97 (96%) intervention and 30 of 37 (81%) comparison participants completing study protocols. There was a statistically significant increase in patients' HPV vaccine initiation rates after training within the intervention group (54.3%‒72.4%; 18.1% difference [95% CI=11.0, 25.8]; p<0.001) but not within the comparison group (59.5%‒63.4%; 3.9% difference [95% CI= -11.0, 19.0]; p=0.609). In conclusion, HPV vaccine initiation increased after VR training, and further study is warranted.

School Health Service Provider Perceptions on Facilitated Interactive Role-Play Around HPV Vaccine Recommendation

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a facilitated interactive role-playing activity on increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine recommendation skills for school nurses and school-based health center staff. A 1-day workshop was implemented for school-based clinicians focused on improving HPV vaccination rates in schools. The workshop included a facilitated interactive role-playing activity involving five scenarios related to recommending the HPV vaccine to parents. Participants completed a usability survey with open-ended questions assessing their experience. A general inductive approach was used to examine responses. Sixteen participants completed the usability survey. The major strength identified specific to the activity included opportunity to practice evidence-based recommendation skills (n = 10). Weaknesses of the activity identified included lack of diversity (n = 4) and complexity within the scenarios (n = 2). Results could shift current educational and clinical paradigms through the implementation of hands-on education strategies to effectively train school-based clinicians to strongly recommend the HPV vaccine.

Medical student attitudes on vaccination relevance: A mixed-method study

Background and objectives

The study aims to investigate the attitudes of medical students regarding the importance and relevance of vaccinations, whether vaccinations should be compulsory and how to employ a new teaching concept to deal with vaccination-critical parents.

Methods

This mixed-method study consists of a quantitative questionnaire and focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed by calculating the descriptive statistics, and interviews were analysed using Mayring’s content analysis.

Results

A total of 170 medical students completed the questionnaire, and 59 students participated in 9 focus groups. Students reported that they felt more confident dealing with vaccination-critical parents after learning the new teaching concept. Similar results were found for medical students prior to and during the pandemic. During the pandemic, medical students viewed vaccinations for several diseases, such as measles or COVID-19, as important (range: M = 3.56, SD = 0.54 to M = 3.97, SD = 0.17). Similar results were found for medical students prior to the pandemic (range: M = 3.26, SD = 0.77 to M = 3.94, SD = 0.24). In the focus groups, however, medical students displayed controversial attitudes regarding compulsory vaccinations.

Conclusions

While the medical students agreed on the use of vaccination for highly infectious diseases, their level of agreement decreased depending on the severity of the disease. Practical recommendations that come out of the study are creating a trustful relationship with and delivering information to patients.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among low-income, racially and ethnically diverse US parents

OBJECTIVE

Examine factors impacting U.S. parents' intention to vaccinate their children against COVID-19.

METHODS

Data were collected February-May 2021 from parents living in six geographically diverse locations. The COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey assessed perceived susceptibility and severity to adverse outcomes from the pandemic. Semi-structured interviews assessed perceptions about benefits and risks of vaccinating children.

RESULTS

Fifty parents of 106 children (newborn-17 years) were included; half were Spanish-speaking and half English-speaking. 62% were hesitant about vaccinating their children against COVID-19. Efficacy and safety were the main themes that emerged: some parents perceived them as benefits while others perceived them as risks to vaccination. Parent hesitancy often relied on social media, and was influenced by narrative accounts of vaccination experiences. Many cited the lower risk of negative outcomes from COVID-19 among children, when compared with adults. Some also cited inaccurate and constantly changing information about COVID-19 vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Main drivers of parent hesitancy regarding child COVID-19 vaccination include perceived safety and efficacy of the vaccines and lower severity of illness in children.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Many vaccine-hesitant parents may be open to vaccination in the future and welcome additional discussion and data.

Making Conversation Analysis Accessible: A Conceptual Guide for Health Services Researchers

The quality of healthcare communication can impact both experiences and outcomes. We highlight aspects of communication that can be systematically examined using Conversation Analysis (CA) and provide guidance about how researchers can incorporate CA into healthcare studies. CA is a qualitative method for studying naturally occurring communication by analyzing recurrent, systematic practices of verbal and nonverbal behavior. CA involves examining audio- or video-recorded conversations and their transcriptions to identify practices speakers use to communicate and interpret behavior. We explain what distinguishes CA from other methods that study communication and highlight three accessible CA approaches that researchers can use in their research design, analysis, or implementation of communication interventions. Specifically, these approaches focus on how talk is produced (specific words, framing, and syntax), by whom, and when it occurs in the conversation. These approaches can be leveraged to generate hypotheses and to identify patterns of behavior that inform empirically driven communication interventions.

Exploration of Vaccination Attitudes Among Parents and Caregivers in a Rural Appalachian Health Clinic

At a rural Appalachian health clinic in Kentucky, 20% of patients under 18 years were not up to date with the CDC-recommended immunization schedule. Reasons parents or caregivers chose to delay or refuse their child's immunizations were explored using the Caregiver Vaccination Attitude Scale. High levels of trust in the healthcare provider and self-reported vaccine knowledge highlight opportunities for rural healthcare providers to apply evidence-based communication strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and promote the safety and health of the entire community.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent among women aged 18-49 years by pregnancy status, United States, April-November 2021

Background

Pregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and attitudes among women of reproductive age overall and by pregnancy status in the United States.

Methods

Data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collected during April 22-November 27, 2021, were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of ≥1 dose), intent for vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination among women aged 18–49 years overall and by pregnancy status (trying to get pregnant, currently pregnant, breastfeeding, and not trying to get pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding). Logistic regression and predictive marginals were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and aPRs). Trend analyses were conducted to assess monthly changes in vaccination and intent.

Results

Our analyses included 110,925 women aged 18–49 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) was 63.2% overall (range from 53.3% in HHS Region 4 to 76.5% in HHS Region 1). Vaccination coverage was lowest among pregnant women (45.1%), followed by women who were trying to get pregnant (49.5%), women who were breastfeeding (51.5%), and all other women (64.9%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women who were pregnant or breastfeeding had significantly lower vaccination coverage (aPR: 0.74 and 0.66, respectively) than NH White women.

Discussion

Our findings are consistent with other studies showing lower vaccination coverage among pregnant individuals, with substantially lower vaccination coverage among NH Black women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Given the overlapping and disproportionate risks of COVID-19 and maternal mortality among Black women, it is critical that COVID-19 vaccination be strongly recommended for these populations and all women of reproductive age. Healthcare and public health providers may take advantage of every opportunity to encourage vaccination and enlist the assistance of community leaders, particularly in communities with low vaccination coverage.

Communications to Promote Interest and Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines

PURPOSE

Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and efficacy is crucial for promoting transparency and informed decision-making, but there is limited evidence on how to do so effectively.

DESIGN

A within-subjects experiment.

SETTING

Online survey from January 21 to February 6, 2021.

SUBJECTS

596 US Veterans and 447 non-Veterans.

INTERVENTION

5 messages about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and 4 messages about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

MEASURES

COVID-19 vaccine interest (1 = "I definitely do NOT want the vaccine" to 7 = "I definitely WANT the vaccine" with the midpoint 4 = "Unsure"). Confidence about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (1= "Not at all confident," 2 = "Slightly confident," 3 = "Somewhat confident," 4 = "Moderately confident," 5 = "Extremely confident").

RESULTS

Compared to providing information about side effects alone (M = 5.62 [1.87]), messages with additional information on the benefits of vaccination (M = 5.77 [1.82], P < .001, d_z = .25), reframing the likelihood of side effects (M = 5.74 [1.84], P < .001, d_z = .23), and emphasizing that post-vaccine symptoms indicate the vaccine is working (M = 5.72 [1.84], P < .001, d_z = .17) increased vaccine interest. Compared to a vaccine efficacy message containing verbal uncertainty and an efficacy range (M = 3.97 [1.25]), messages conveying verbal certainty with an efficacy range (M = 4.00 [1.24], P = .042, d_z=.08), verbal uncertainty focused on the upper efficacy limit (M = 4.03 [1.26], P < .001, d_z = .13), and communicating the point estimate with certainty (M = 4.02 [1.25], P < .001, d_z = .11) increased confidence. Overall, Veteran respondents were more interested (M_Veterans = 5.87 [1.72] vs M_NonVeterans = 5.45 [2.00], P < .001, d = .22) and confident (M_Veterans = 4.13 [1.19] vs M_NonVeterans = 3.84 [1.32], P < .001, d = .23) about COVID-19 vaccines than non-Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

These strategies can be implemented in large-scale communications (e.g., webpages, social media, and leaflets/posters) and can help guide healthcare professionals when discussing vaccinations in clinics to promote interest and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

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

•

Early childhood vaccination coverage is low in rural areas of the United States.

•

Reminder-recall & positive family-provider relationships facilitate vaccine uptake.

•

Parental hesitancy is a barrier to early childhood vaccination in the rural U.S.

•

Vaccine referrals & distance to providers are also rural-specific barriers.

•

To increase vaccine coverage, interventions across rural populations are needed.

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

Provider response and follow-up to parental declination of HPV vaccination

OBJECTIVE

Parents often decline HPV vaccination, but little is known about how healthcare providers should promote vaccination at a later visit for secondary acceptance. We examined the associations of two factors, providers' response to declination during the visit and follow-up after the visit, with secondary acceptance.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US parents whose 9- to 17-year-old child had not yet completed the HPV vaccination series. Parents who declined HPV vaccination during an initial discussion with a provider (n = 447) reported whether their provider engaged in any active response during the visit (e.g., giving information, trying to change their mind) or any follow-up after the visit (e.g., scheduling another visit). We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine whether an active response or follow-up was associated with secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination.

RESULTS

Only about one-third of parents reported an active response during the visit (35%) or follow-up after the visit (39%) following HPV vaccination declination. Parents had higher odds of secondary acceptance of HPV vaccine if they received any provider follow-up after the visit (43% vs. 20%, aOR:3.19; 95% CI:2.00:5.07). Receipt of an active provider response was not associated with secondary acceptance. More parents thought a provider should actively respond and follow-up (61% and 68% respectively), compared with those who received such a response (both p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Providers' follow-up after the visit may be important for promoting secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. Parents who decline HPV vaccination often prefer to receive an active response or follow-up from a provider.

Doctor recommendations and parents' HPV vaccination intentions in Kenya: A randomized survey

The causal effect of a doctor’s recommendation for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on parents’ decisions in low-resource settings is not well understood. This study investigates how doctors’ endorsement of the HPV vaccine communicated through a public health poster affects parents’ decisions to vaccinate their daughters in Kenya. In January and February 2021, 600 parents of daughters eligible for the HPV vaccine but not yet vaccinated were recruited and completed a randomized survey. Participants saw a poster from a national campaign about HPV vaccination and either nothing further (Control) or an additional poster containing an HPV vaccine recommendation from a female (FDR) or male doctor (MDR). Primary outcomes are intentions to vaccinate and perceived safety of the HPV vaccine. Both recommendation arms increased the likelihood that participants reported the highest levels of vaccine intentions compared to control (FDR: 33.7% p = 0.01; MDR: 30.5%, p = 0.05, compared to Control (22.4%)) and safety perceptions (FDR: 24.2%. p = 0.09; MDR: 28.0%, p = 0.01, compared to Control (17.1%)) but there was no statistically significant increase in the likelihood to report above moderate vaccine intentions (FDR: 72.6%, p = 0.76; MDR: 72.5%, p = 0.77, compared to Control (71.4%)) or safety perceptions (FDR: 68.9%, p = 0.91; MDR: 75.0%, p = 0.17, compared to Control (68.6%)). We find no differential treatment effect by the recommending doctor’s gender. In conclusion, our results suggest that visual communication of a doctor’s support for the HPV vaccine can strengthen above-moderate intentions and safety perceptions but may not be enough to persuade the vaccine hesitant to vaccinate.

Report of Health Care Provider Recommendation for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Adults, by Recipient COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Attitudes - United States, April-September 2021

Vaccination is critical to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, and health care providers play an important role in achieving high vaccination coverage (1). To examine the prevalence of report of a provider recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination and its association with COVID-19 vaccination coverage and attitudes, CDC analyzed data among adults aged ≥18 years from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM), a nationally representative cellular telephone survey. Prevalence of report of a provider recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination among adults increased from 34.6%, during April 22-May 29, to 40.5%, during August 29-September 25, 2021. Adults who reported a provider recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination were more likely to have received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (77.6%) than were those who did not receive a recommendation (61.9%) (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.12). Report of a provider recommendation was associated with concern about COVID-19 (aPR = 1.31), belief that COVID-19 vaccines are important to protect oneself (aPR = 1.15), belief that COVID-19 vaccination was very or completely safe (aPR = 1.17), and perception that many or all of their family and friends had received COVID-19 vaccination (aPR = 1.19). Empowering health care providers to recommend vaccination to their patients could help reinforce confidence in, and increase coverage with, COVID-19 vaccines, particularly among groups known to have lower COVID-19 vaccination coverage, including younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, and rural residents.

When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations

Using conversation analysis, this paper investigates when patients exercise their right to refuse treatment in neurology outpatient consultations recorded in the UK's National Health Service in 2012 (n = 224). NHS patients have a right to refuse treatment. However, there are good reasons to suppose that this may be difficult to exercise in practice. We know that clinicians tend to pursue acceptance if it's not forthcoming and those studies that have tracked decision-making trajectories through to their outcomes have shown that clinicians typically convert resistance to acceptance. By contrast, I show that, in 35/40 (87.5 %) cases in which patients sought to refuse treatments made available by a neurologist, they left without a prescription or referral. This paper seeks to explain this apparently anomalous finding. Starting with an example of what I expected to find - a 'duel' that ends with the neurologist persuading the patient to accept treatment - I show that this is, in fact, the exception. By contrast, most of the (attempted) refusals are collaborative, occurring after the neurologist has initiated decision-making in a way that designedly foregrounds the patients' views as the basis for deciding. I show also that, having done so, the neurologists typically continue to treat the decision as subject to the patient's preferences. Thus, the trajectories in my collection - despite including attempts to refuse treatment - do not typically become duels. Rather, patients are refusing treatment in a sequential context that facilitates making their own decision.

A social media microinfluencer intervention to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine hesitancy in underserved Tennessee communities: A protocol paper

Background

Central to effective public health policy and practice is the trust between the population served and the governmental body leading health efforts, but that trust has eroded in the years preceding the pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy among adults is also a growing concern across the United States. Recent data suggest that the trustworthiness of information about the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine was a larger concern than the vaccine’s adverse effects or risks.

Objective

This study aims to describe the methods used to create a public health microinfluencer social media vaccine confidence campaign for the COVID-19 vaccine in underserved Tennessee communities. A secondary objective is to describe how the Social-Ecological Model (SEM) and Social Cognitive Theory may address vaccine hesitancy using community pharmacies.

Methods

In late 2020, 50 independent community pharmacies in underserved communities across Tennessee were involved in a public health project with the State of Tennessee Department of Health and the University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Pharmacy. The project involved a 3-pronged, pharmacy-based COVID-19 vaccination outreach project, including (1) social media messaging (i.e., microinfluencer approach), (2) community partner collaboration, and (3) in-pharmacy promotion. Quantitative and qualitative data will assess the quality and effectiveness of the program. Social media outcomes will also be assessed to measure the impact of the microinfluencer social media training.

Results

Project implementation is planned for 6 months (January 2021 to June 2021) after an initial month of planning by the research team (December 2020) and preceding several months of assessment (July 2021 and beyond).

Conclusions

Novel, theory-based approaches will be necessary to improve vaccine confidence. One approach to promoting public health, derived from the SEM, may be to use trusted microinfluencers on social media platforms, such as local community pharmacists and community leaders.

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.

Vaccine Hesitancy: Drivers and How the Allergy Community Can Help

Vaccine hesitancy-defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a "delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services"-is not a recent phenomenon. Historical records indicate that vaccine hesitancy existed by the 18th century in Europe and even resulted in violent riots. The drivers of vaccine hesitancy have evolved over the last 200 years but not, perhaps, as much as one might expect. More problematic are the means by which concerns over vaccine hesitancy are communicated by a new landscape of digital communication, generating what has been described as an "infodemic" in which an overabundance of information-both factual and misinformation-contributes to hesitancy. In this review, we discuss the background and current drivers of vaccine hesitancy and the evidence base for strategies to combat this. We highlight the important role the allergy/immunology community could have in working to mitigate vaccine hesitancy, particularly with respect to the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Facilitators and Barriers to Providing Vaccinations During Hospital Visits

BACKGROUND

Many children are undervaccinated at the time of hospital admission. Our objective was to explore the facilitators and barriers to vaccinating during hospitalization.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews of parents, primary care pediatricians, emergency department (ED) physicians, and pediatric hospitalists. Parents of undervaccinated hospitalized children who were admitted through the ED were invited to participate. We used purposive sampling to identify physician participants. Semistructured interviews querying participants' perspectives on hospital-based vaccination were audiorecorded and transcribed. Parent demographics and physician practice characteristics were collected. Transcripts were analyzed for facilitators and barriers to vaccinating during acute hospital visits by using inductive content analysis. A conceptual framework was developed on the basis of the social ecological model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one parent interviews and 10 physician interviews were conducted. Of parent participants, 86% were female; 76% were white. Physician participants included 3 primary care pediatricians, 3 ED physicians, and 4 hospitalists. Facilitators and barriers fell under 4 major themes: (1) systems-level factors, (2) physician-level factors, (3) parent-provider interactional factors, and (4) parent- and child-level factors. Parent participants reported a willingness to receive vaccines during hospitalizations, which aligned with physician participants' experiences. Another key facilitator identified by parent and physician participants was the availability of shared immunization data. Identified by parent and physician participants included the availability of shared immunization data. Barriers included being unaware that the child was vaccine-eligible, parental beliefs against vaccination, and ED and inpatient physicians' perceived lack of skills to effectively communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and physicians identified several key facilitators and barriers to vaccinating during hospitalization. Efforts to provide inpatient vaccines need to address existing barriers.