Vaccination barriers and drivers in Romania: a focused ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

In 2016-18, a large measles outbreak occurred in Romania identified by pockets of sub-optimally vaccinated population groups in the country. The aim of the current study was to gain insight into barriers and drivers from the experience of measles vaccination from the perspectives of caregivers and their providers.

METHODS

Data were collected by non-participant observation of vaccination consultations and individual interviews with health workers and caregivers in eight Romanian clinics with high or low measles vaccination uptake. Romanian stakeholders were involved in all steps of the study. The findings of this study were discussed during a workshop with key stakeholders.

RESULTS

Over 400 h of observation and 161 interviews were conducted. A clear difference was found between clinics with high and low measles vaccination uptake which indicates that being aware of and following recommended practices for both vaccination service delivery and conveying vaccine recommendations to caregivers may have an impact on vaccine uptake. Barriers identified were related to shortcomings in following recommended practices for vaccination consultations by health workers (e.g. correctly assessing contraindications or providing enough information to allow an informed decision). These observations were largely confirmed in interviews with caregivers and revealed significant knowledge gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of key barriers provided an opportunity to design specific interventions to improve vaccination service delivery (e.g. mobile vaccination clinics, use of an electronic vaccination registry system for scheduling of appointments) and build capacity among health workers (e.g. guidance and supporting materials and training programmes).

Understanding the influence of online information, misinformation, disinformation and reinformation on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: Protocol for a multicomponent study

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an explosion in the amount of information shared on the internet, including false and misleading information on SARS-CoV-2 and recommended protective behaviors. Prior to the pandemic, web-based misinformation and disinformation were already identified as having an impact on people’s decision to refuse or delay recommended vaccination for themselves or their children.

Objective

The overall aims of our study are to better understand the influence of web-based misinformation and disinformation on COVID-19 vaccine decisions and investigate potential solutions to reduce the impact of web-based misinformation and disinformation about vaccines.

Methods

Based on different research approaches, the study will involve (1) the use of artificial intelligence techniques, (2) a web-based survey, (3) interviews, and (4) a scoping review and an environmental scan of the literature.

Results

As of September 1, 2022, data collection has been completed for all objectives. The analysis is being conducted, and results should be disseminated in the upcoming months.

Conclusions

The findings from this study will help with understanding the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy among Canadian individuals and identifying effective, tailored interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among them.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/41012

An instrument to measure psychosocial determinants of health care professionals' vaccination behavior: Validation of the Pro-VC-Be questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

The lack of validated instruments assessing vaccine hesitancy/confidence among health care professionals (HCPs) for themselves, and their patients led us to develop and validate the Pro-VC-Be instrument to measure vaccine confidence and other psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccination behavior among diverse HCPs in different countries.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey in October-November 2020 among 1,249 GPs in France, 432 GPs in French-speaking parts of Belgium, and 1,055 nurses in Quebec (Canada), all participating in general population immunization. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses evaluated the instrument's construct validity. We used HCPs' self-reported vaccine recommendations to patients, general immunization activity, self-vaccination, and future COVID-19 vaccine acceptance to test criterion validity.

RESULTS

The final results indicated a 6-factor structure with good fit: vaccine confidence (combining complacency, perceived vaccine risks, perceived benefit-risk balance, perceived collective responsibility), trust in authorities, perceived constraints, proactive efficacy (combining commitment to vaccination and self-efficacy), reluctant trust, and openness to patients. The instrument showed good convergent and criterion validity and adequate discriminant validity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the Pro-VC-Be is a valid instrument for measuring psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccination behaviors in different settings. Its validation is currently underway in Europe among various HCPs in different languages.

A user-centered approach to developing a new tool measuring the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination

BACKGROUND

Children around the world remain under-vaccinated for many reasons. To develop effective vaccine delivery programmes and monitor intervention impact, vaccine programme implementers need to understand reasons for under-vaccination within their local context. The World Health Organization (WHO) Working Group on the Behavioural and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) is developing standardised tools for assessing childhood vaccine acceptance and uptake that can be used across regions and countries. The tools will include: (1) a validated survey; (2) qualitative interview guides; and (3) corresponding user guidance. We report a user-centred needs assessment of key end-users of the BeSD tools.

METHODS

Twenty qualitative interviews (Apr-Aug 2019) with purposively sampled vaccine programme managers, partners and stakeholders from UNICEF and WHO country and regional offices. The interviews assessed current systems, practices and challenges in data utilisation and reflections on how the BeSD tools might be optimised. Framework analysis was used to code the interviews.

RESULTS

Regarding current practices, participants described a variety of settings, data systems, and frequencies of vaccination attitude measurement. They reported that the majority of data used is quantitative, and there is appetite for increased use of qualitative data. Capacity for conducting studies on social/behavioural drivers of vaccination was high in some jurisdictions and needed in others. Issues include barriers to collecting such data and variability in sources. Reflecting on the tools, participants described the need to explore the attitudes and practices of healthcare workers in addition to parents and caregivers. Participants were supportive of the proposed mixed-methods structure of the tools and training in their usage, and highlighted the need for balance between tool standardisation and flexibility to adapt locally.

CONCLUSIONS

A user-centred approach in developing the BeSD tools has given valuable direction to their design, bringing the use of behavioural and social data to the heart of programme planning.

Vaccine acceptance: Science, policy, and practice in a 'post-fact' world

Suboptimal vaccination uptake may be associated with outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in many parts of the world. Researchers and practitioners working on improving vaccine acceptance and uptake gathered together for the fifth annual meeting on vaccine acceptance, organized by the Fondation Mérieux at its conference centre in Veyrier-du-Lac, France, to share their experiences in building, improving and sustaining vaccine confidence and uptake. The importance and value of truly listening to people and seeking to understand the perspectives of vaccine hesitant people was emphasized throughout the meeting. The benefits of social marketing, which can be used to influence behavior that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good, and its integration into strategies aimed at improving vaccine acceptance and uptake, were discussed. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) need tools and training to help them engage effectively in vaccination acceptance conversations with parents and other patients. Two potential tools, motivational interviewing (MI) and AIMS (Announce, Inquire, Mirror, Secure), were presented. Examples of MI approaches that have successfully improved vaccination acceptance and uptake included a project in Canada aimed at parents just after the birth of their baby. The role of mandates to increase vaccination uptake in the short-term was discussed, but to achieve sustainable vaccination uptake this must be complemented with other strategies. These annual meetings have led to the creation of an informal community of practice that facilitates cross-pollination between the various disciplines and different settings of those involved in this area of research and implementation. It was agreed that we must continue our efforts to promote vaccine acceptance and thus increase vaccination uptake, by fostering more effective vaccination communication, monitoring of the media conversation on vaccination, designing and rigorously evaluating targeted interventions, and surveillance of vaccine acceptance and uptake with pertinent, reliable measures.

Interventions to help people understand community immunity: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Herd immunity, or community immunity, occurs when susceptible people in a population are indirectly protected from infection thanks to the pervasiveness of immunity within the population. In this study, we aimed to systematically review interventions designed to communicate what community immunity is and how community immunity works to members of the general public.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles describing interventions with or without evaluations. We then conducted web searches with Google to identify interventions lacking associated publications. We extracted data about the target population of the interventions, the interventions themselves (e.g., did they describe what community immunity is, and how it works), any effects of evaluated interventions, and synthesized data narratively.

RESULTS

We identified 32 interventions: 11 interventions described in peer-reviewed articles and 21 interventions without associated articles. Of the 32 interventions, 5 described what community immunity is, 6 described the mechanisms of how community immunity occurs and 21 described both. Fourteen of the 32 addressed infectious diseases in general while the other 13 addressed one or more specific diseases. Twelve of the 32 interventions used videos, 7 used interactive simulations and 6 used questionnaires. Ten of the 11 peer-reviewed articles described studies evaluating at least one effect of the interventions. Within these 10, 4/4 reported increased knowledge, 3/5 reported shifts of attitudes in favour of vaccination, 2/5 reported increased intentions to vaccinate. Of 3 studies evaluating interventions specifically about community immunity, 2 reported increased intentions to vaccinate.

CONCLUSIONS

A compelling benefit of vaccination exists at the population level in the form of community immunity. Identifying ways to optimally communicate about this benefit may be important, because some evidence suggests that effective communication about community immunity can increase vaccination intentions.

Is physician dismissal of vaccine refusers an acceptable practice in Canada? A 2018 overview

Despite robust evidence that routine immunization is effective and safe, some parents refuse some or all vaccines for their children. In 2007, concern that Canadian paediatricians and family physicians might be considering dismissal of vaccine refusers from their practices prompted an ethical, legal, and public health analysis which concluded that dismissal was professionally problematic. We now reassess this important issue in the Canadian context updating ethical, legal, and public health considerations highlighting changes since 2007. In light of the recent strengthening of Ontario's school immunization requirements that include stiffer steps to qualify for a medical, conscience, or religious belief exemption, physicians and health care workers may be under more pressure from vaccine refusers in their practice leading some to contemplate dismissal or even consider no longer offering immunizations at all in their practice. Given the challenges that vaccine refusers may present, we offer an overview for managing vaccine refusal by parents/patients in a medical practice.

The vaccine hesitancy scale: Psychometric properties and validation

INTRODUCTION

The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy developed a vaccine hesitancy measure, the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). This scale has the potential to aid in the advancement of research and immunization policy but has not yet been psychometrically evaluated.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, we collected self-reported survey data from a large national sample of Canadian parents from August to September 2016. An online questionnaire was completed in English or French. We used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to identify latent constructs underlying parents' responses to 10 VHS items (response scale 1-5, with higher scores indicating greater hesitancy). In addition to the VHS, measures included socio-demographics items, vaccine attitudes, parents' human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine decision-making stage, and vaccine refusal.

RESULTS

A total of 3779 Canadian parents completed the survey in English (74.1%) or French (25.9%). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure best explained the data, consisting of 'lack of confidence' (M = 1.98, SD = 0.72) and 'risks' (M = 3.07, SD = 0.95). Significant Pearson correlations were found between the scales and related vaccine attitudes. ANOVA analyses found significant differences in the VHS sub-scales by parents' vaccine decision-making stages (p < .001). Independent samples t-tests found that the VHS sub-scales were associated with HPV vaccine refusal and refusing another vaccine (p < .001). Socio-demographic differences in the VHS were found; however, effect sizes were small (η² < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The VHS was found to have two factors that have construct and criterion validity in identifying vaccine hesitant parents. A limitation of the VHS was few items that loaded on the 'risks' component and a lack of positively and negatively worded items for both components. Based on these results, we suggest modifying the wording of some items and adding items on risk perceptions.

'I didn't even know boys could get the vaccine': Parents' reasons for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination decision making for their sons

OBJECTIVE

The study's objective was to examine parents' reasons for their decision to vaccinate their 9-16-year-old sons with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

METHODS

Using the precaution adoption process model (PAPM), parents were classified according to one of six stages of decision making: unaware, unengaged, undecided, decided not to vaccinate, decided to vaccinate, or vaccinated. Parents responded to an open-ended question: 'What would influence your decision to have your son vaccinated or not against HPV?'

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred and seventeen parents provided 2,874 interpretable narrative responses that were coded using thematic content analyses. The majority of parents were in the earlier precaution adoption process model stages, that is, unaware that the HPV vaccine could be given to boys (57.0%), unengaged (20.9%), or undecided (9.1%). Needing more information, vaccine cost, risks associated with vaccination, and wanting a doctor's recommendation influenced these earlier-staged parents' decisions. Parents who decided not to vaccinate their sons (6.8%) reported their decision was due to the risks, insufficient research, lack of confidence in vaccines, and/or no need for the vaccine (as their sons are not sexually active and/or too young). Parents who had decided to vaccinate their sons (5.0%) or who had vaccinated their sons (1.1%) reported that their decisions were based on protecting their sons' health and preventing disease.

CONCLUSION

There are important differences in the factors that influence parents' decision depending on where they are along the decision-making trajectory. Assuring that parents are well informed about the importance of male vaccination, reducing vaccine cost, accurately communicating vaccine safety, and improving patient-provider communication may augment vaccine coverage and prevent HPV-associated cancers in Canada. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Measuring vaccine hesitancy: The development of a survey tool

In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.