Dataset Information

Countering vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of interventions to strengthen healthcare professionals' action.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccine hesitancy is relevant for healthcare professionals (HCPs) who face challenges in building trusting relationships with patients. Accordingly, the VAX-TRUST project has been developed to improve experiences of HCPs and patients dealing with vaccinations. To support VAX-TRUST, this work aimed to identify latest interventions targeted at HCPs to address hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA by searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Articles were eligible if evaluated interventions directly targeted at HCPs/healthcare students. The search was run on 26 January 2022. Articles published in 2016 or after were included.

Results

A total of 17 492 records were identified; 139 articles were selected. Most articles were set in USA (n = 110). Over half had a pre-post design without a control group (n = 78). A total of 41 articles focused on single-component interventions, 60 on multi-component interventions involving only HCPs and/or students and 38 on multi-component interventions involving also other professionals. Main components were in-person education (n = 76), synchronous (n = 10) and asynchronous (n = 23) online learning, educational materials (n = 26), performance assessment and feedback (n = 33), electronic record changes (n = 30), role play/simulation (n = 21) and online games/apps (n = 5). Educational sessions were mainly about scientific update or communication. Outcomes of interventions were grouped in: vaccination rates (n = 69), knowledge (n = 32), attitudes (n = 26), confidence in counselling (n = 30) and acceptability (n = 16).

Conclusions

Apps, gaming, role play/simulations could represent innovative interventions. This review highlighted the need of delving into communication strategies and using more robust evaluations, longer follow-up and standardized measurements.

SUBMITTER: Lo Moro G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10567238 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Countering vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of interventions to strengthen healthcare professionals' action.

Lo Moro Giuseppina G Ferrara Maria M Langiano Elisa E Accortanzo Davide D Cappelletti Toni T De Angelis Aldo A Esposito Maurizio M Prinzivalli Alessandro A Sannella Alessandra A Sbaragli Sara S Vuolanto Pia P Siliquini Roberta R De Vito Elisabetta E

European journal of public health 20231001 5

<h4>Background</h4>Vaccine hesitancy is relevant for healthcare professionals (HCPs) who face challenges in building trusting relationships with patients. Accordingly, the VAX-TRUST project has been developed to improve experiences of HCPs and patients dealing with vaccinations. To support VAX-TRUST, this work aimed to identify latest interventions targeted at HCPs to address hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA by searching ...[more]

PMID: 37581903

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMisinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2).MethodsWe searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2).ResultsOf 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results.ConclusionThis review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.

Project description:IntroductionConscience is central to moral decision making. In the context of morally pluralistic workplaces today, healthcare professionals' conscience may prompt them to make moral decisions to refrain from providing services they morally disagree with. However, such decisions are largely viewed as contentious, giving rise to polarising arguments for and against healthcare professionals' freedom of conscience. Yet, little work has been done to understand and support healthcare professionals' conscience. Instead, the rising polarity related to healthcare professionals' freedom of conscience stems from a central lack of understanding of what conscience is and the relevance it holds for healthcare professionals' clinical practice. Therefore, the degree and extent to which healthcare professionals are supported to understand and use their conscience is unknown. The objective of this review is to critically analyse the scholarly evidence available to ascertain the effectiveness of interventions that support healthcare professionals to understand and use their conscience in care practice.Methods and analysesAt least two reviewers will systematically review 10 interdisciplinary, scholarly databases to examine qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies including clinical trials pertaining to interventions related to conscience for healthcare professionals. Databases to be searched include: the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Academic Search Complete, ATLA Religion Database, Religion and Philosophy Collection, PhilPapers and Scopus. Databases were searched in May 2021. Study screening, selection, extraction and risk of bias assessments on each study using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be independently conducted by independent reviewers. Descriptive data synthesis will be carried out. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis will be conducted as relevant, based on homogeneity of findings. The quality of the aggregate evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. This protocol will not involve individual patient information endangering participant rights. The results will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021256943.

Dataset Information

Countering vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of interventions to strengthen healthcare professionals' action.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Countering vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of interventions to strengthen healthcare professionals' action.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets