Dataset Information

Qualitative focus groups with stakeholders identify new potential outcomes related to vaccination communication.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Communication interventions are widely used to promote childhood vaccination and sustain vaccine acceptance, but communication's role in changing people's beliefs and behaviours is not well understood. To determine why these interventions work or where they fail, evaluations must measure a range of outcomes in addition to vaccination uptake. As part of a larger project to develop a preliminary Core Outcome Set for vaccination communication, we conducted a qualitative focus group study exploring how parents and health professionals perceive and experience communication encounters and what outcomes are relevant to them.

Methods

Focus group participants included parents and health professionals involved in vaccination communication (healthcare providers, researchers and policymakers). Participants discussed their experiences with communication for childhood vaccination, and what made the communication 'successful' or 'unsuccessful.' Our analysis involved two stages: first, we thematically analysed the discussions, identifying key parent and professional themes. In stage two, we used an interpretive analysis approach to translate the themes and quotes into measurable outcomes. We compared these outcomes with outcomes measured in vaccination communication trials (previously identified and mapped).

Results

We held three focus groups with parents (n = 12) and four with professionals (n = 19). In stage one, we identified six parent themes (primarily related to decision-making) and five professional themes (primarily related to intervention planning, delivery and evaluation). In stage two, we translated 47 outcomes from parents and 73 from professionals (91 total, de-duplicated). All stakeholders discussed attitudes or beliefs and decision-making outcomes most frequently. Most (66%) of the focus group-generated outcomes were not measured in vaccination communication trials.

Conclusion

Consulting with stakeholders through focus groups allowed us to explore how parents and professionals experienced vaccination communication, identify those aspects of the experience that were important to them, and translate these into outcomes that can be prioritised into a Core Outcome Set and measured in intervention evaluations.

SUBMITTER: Kaufman J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6070264 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Qualitative focus groups with stakeholders identify new potential outcomes related to vaccination communication.

Kaufman Jessica J Ryan Rebecca R Hill Sophie S

PloS one 20180801 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Communication interventions are widely used to promote childhood vaccination and sustain vaccine acceptance, but communication's role in changing people's beliefs and behaviours is not well understood. To determine why these interventions work or where they fail, evaluations must measure a range of outcomes in addition to vaccination uptake. As part of a larger project to develop a preliminary Core Outcome Set for vaccination communication, we conducted a qualitative focus g ...[more]

PMID: 30067802

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsHistorically, patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of surgical trials has been absent or minimal, but it is now routinely recommended and even required by some research funders. We aimed to identify and describe current PPI practice in surgical trials in the United Kingdom, and to explore the views and experiences of surgical trial staff and patient or public contributors in relation to these practices. This was part of a larger study to inform development of a robust PPI intervention aimed at improving recruitment and retention in surgical trials.MethodsOur study had two stages: 1) an online survey to identify current PPI practice in active UK-led, adult surgical trials; and 2) focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders (surgical trial investigators, administrators, and patient or public contributors) to explore their views and experiences of PPI.ResultsOf 129 eligible surgical trial teams identified, 71 (55%) took part in the survey. In addition, 54 stakeholders subsequently took part in focus groups or interviews. Sixty-five (92%) survey respondents reported some kind of PPI, most commonly at the design and dissemination stages and in oversight or advisory roles. The single most common PPI activity was developing participant information sheets (72%). Participants reported mixed practice and views on a variety of issues including the involvement of patients versus lay members of the public, recruitment methods, use of role descriptions and payment for the time of PPI contributors. They suggested some solutions, including the use of written role descriptions and databases of potential PPI contributors to aid recruitment.ConclusionsUK surgical trials involve patients and members of the public in a variety of different ways, most commonly at the beginning and end of the trial lifecycle and in oversight or advisory roles. These are not without challenges and there remain uncertainties about who best to involve, why, and how. Future research should aim to address these issues.

Project description:BackgroundIn India and other low- and middle-income countries, multiple family and community members are influential in caregivers' perceptions of vaccination. Existing literature indicates the primary caregiver, typically the mother, is instrumental in vaccine decision-making, but this may vary in contexts. We investigated the role of stakeholders in India who influence caregivers' vaccination perceptions, as this is essential to developing strategies to promote vaccine acceptance and improve uptake.MethodsThis research was conducted in 2019 in Mewat District in Haryana, an area in India with extremely low vaccination coverage. We conducted six focus group discussions with 60 participants in the following categories: fathers of children under-5 years old, expectant mothers, mothers-in-law, community health workers, and community influencers such as locally elected officials and religious leaders.ResultsOur results highlighted four themes that influence vaccine uptake. First, while caregivers associated vaccination with reductions in specific diseases, they also noted that vaccination services brought broad health gains, including improved nutrition, antenatal guidance, and social support. Second, community health workers critically influenced, positively or negatively, caregivers' vaccination perceptions. Third, community health workers faced gaps in their education such as limited training on vaccine side-effects, placing them at a disadvantage when dealing with families. Finally, we found that mothers-in-law, fathers, and religious leaders influence caregivers' perceptions of vaccination.ConclusionsCommunication of broader benefits of vaccines and vaccination services by community health workers could be impactful in increasing vaccine acceptance. Vaccine uptake could potentially be improved by facilitating community health workers' ownership over vaccine acceptance and uptake by involving them in the design and implementation of interventions to target mothers and mothers-in-law. A 'bottom-up' approach, leveraging community health workers' knowledge to design interventions, and giving a voice to key members of the household and society beyond mothers alone, may sustain health improvement in low vaccine coverage areas.

Project description:BackgroundShifts in treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have made ambulatory care more labour-intensive. These developments have prompted innovative care models, including mobile health (mHealth) applications. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of mHealth-inexperienced stakeholders concerning these applications in RA care.MethodsWe performed a qualitative study by focus group interviews of stakeholders including RA patients, nurses specialised in RA care and rheumatologists. The qualitative analysis guide of Leuven (QUAGOL), which is based on grounded theory principles, was used to thematically analyse the data. In addition, the Persuasive Systems Design (PSD) model was used to structure recommended app-features.ResultsIn total, 2 focus groups with nurses (total n = 16), 2 with patients (n = 17) and 2 with rheumatologists (n = 25) took place. Six overarching themes emerged from the analysis. Efficiency of care and enabling patient empowerment were the two themes considered as expected benefits of mHealth-use in practice by the stakeholders. In contrast, 4 themes emerged as possible barriers of mHealth-use: the burden of chronic app-use, motivational aspects, target group aspects, and legal and organisational requirements. Additionally, recommendations for an ideal mHealth-app could be structured into 4 domains (Primary Task Support, Dialogue Support, Social Support and System Credibility) according to the PSD-framework. Most recommended features were related to improving ease of use (Task Support) and System Credibility.ConclusionsAlthough mHealth-apps were expected to improve care efficiency and stimulate patient empowerment, stakeholders were concerned that mHealth-app use could reinforce negative illness behaviour. For mHealth-apps to be successful in practice, challenges according to stakeholders were avoiding long-term poor compliance, finding the target audience and tailoring a legal and organisational framework. Finally, the ideal mHealth-application should above all be trustworthy and easy to use.

Project description:IntroductionFor many rare diseases, strong analytic study designs for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions are challenging to implement because of small, geographically dispersed patient populations and underlying clinical heterogeneity. The objective of this study was to integrate perspectives from published literature and key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges and proposed methodological approaches to research on clinical interventions for rare diseases.MethodsWe used a meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews with key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges in generating and synthesizing treatment effectiveness evidence, and to describe various research methods for mitigating these identified challenges. Data from both components of this study were synthesized narratively according to research paradigms that emerged from our data.ResultsResults from our meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews revealed three fundamental challenges in generating robust treatment effectiveness evidence for rare diseases: i) limitations in recruiting a sufficient sample size to achieve planned statistical power; ii) inability to account for clinical heterogeneity and assess treatment effects across a clinical spectrum; and iii) reliance on short-term, surrogate outcomes whose clinical relevance is often unclear. We mapped these challenges and associated solutions to three interrelated research paradigms: i) explanatory evidence generation; ii) comparative effectiveness/pragmatic evidence generation; and iii) patient-oriented evidence generation. Within each research paradigm, numerous criticisms and potential solutions have been described with respect to overcoming these challenges from a research study design perspective.ConclusionsOver time, discussions about clinical research for interventions for rare diseases have moved beyond methodological approaches to overcome challenges related to explanatory evidence generation, with increased recognition of the importance of pragmatic and patient-oriented evidence. Future directions for our work include developing a framework to expand current evidence synthesis practices to take into consideration many of the concepts discussed in this paper.

Project description:Text messaging (short message service, SMS) is a widely accessible and potentially cost-effective medium for encouraging behavior change. Few studies have examined text messaging interventions to influence child health behaviors or explored parental perceptions of mobile technologies to support behavior change among children.Our aim was to examine parental acceptability and preferences for text messaging to support pediatric obesity-related behavior change.We conducted focus groups and follow-up interviews with parents of overweight and obese children, aged 6-12 years, seen for "well-child" care in eastern Massachusetts. A professional moderator used a semistructured discussion guide and sample text messages to catalyze group discussions. Seven participants then received 3 weeks of text messages before a follow-up one-on-one telephone interview. All focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a framework analysis approach, we systematically coded and analyzed group and interview data to identify salient and convergent themes.We reached thematic saturation after five focus groups and seven follow-up interviews with a total of 31 parents of diverse race/ethnicity and education levels. Parents were generally enthusiastic about receiving text messages to support healthy behaviors for their children and preferred them to paper or email communication because they are brief and difficult to ignore. Participants anticipated high responsiveness to messaging endorsed by their child's doctor and indicated they would appreciate messages 2-3 times/week or more as long as content remains relevant. Suggestions for maintaining message relevance included providing specific strategies for implementation and personalizing information. Most felt the negative features of text messaging (eg, limited message size) could be overcome by providing links within messages to other media including email or websites.Text messaging is a promising medium for supporting pediatric obesity-related behavior change. Parent perspectives could assist in the design of text-based interventions.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01565161; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01565161 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LSaqFyPP).

Project description:BackgroundEvidence from COVID-19 outbreak shows that individuals with specific chronic diseases are at higher risk of severe prognosis after infection. Public health authorities are developing vaccination programmes with priorities that minimize the risk of mortality and severe events in individuals and communities. We propose an evidence-based strategy that targets the frailest subjects whose timely vaccination is likely to minimize future deaths and preserve the resilience of the health service by preventing infections.MethodsThe cohort includes 146,087 cases with COVID-19 diagnosed in 2020 in Milan (3.49 million inhabitants). Individual level data on 42 chronic diseases and vital status updated as of January 21, 2021, were available in administrative data. Analyses were performed in three sub-cohorts of age (16-64, 65-79 and 80+ years) and comorbidities affecting mortality were selected by means of LASSO cross-validated conditional logistic regression. Simplified models based on previous results identified high-risk categories worth targeting with highest priority. Results adjusted by age and gender, were reported in terms of odds ratios and 95%CI.ResultsThe final models include as predictors of mortality (7,667 deaths, 5.2%) 10, 12, and 5 chronic diseases, respectively. The older age categories shared, as risk factors, chronic renal failure, chronic heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson disease and psychiatric diseases. In the younger age category, predictors included neoplasm, organ transplantation and psychiatric conditions. Results were consistent with those obtained on mortality at 60 days from diagnosis (6,968 deaths).ConclusionThis approach defines a two-level stratification for priorities in the vaccination that can easily be applied by health authorities, eventually adapted to local results in terms of number and types of comorbidities, and rapidly updated with current data. After the early phase of vaccination, data on effectiveness and safety will give the opportunity to revise prioritization and discuss the future approach in the remaining population.

Project description:Purpose:To describe the experiences of non-medical discipline staff of difficulties and possibilities in inter-professional communication within the radiology department and remitting departments. Materials and Methods:Three focus group interviews were conducted with 16 non-medical discipline staff in a radiology department at a university hospital in Sweden. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results:The experiences of inter-professional communication by non-medical discipline staff within the radiology department and with remitting departments can be described in three categories, and six sub categories. The informants experienced difficulties in both oral and written inter-professional communication. Inadequate structures, incorrect information and unclear language in the referral forms, lack of feedback from clinicians and radiologists, and reduced face-to-face communication were described as factors that negatively influenced communication. Other difficulties were time shortage, inadequate routines and economy issues. The possibilities described were use of face-to-face communication, interpreters, and clear and well-structured referral forms. Conclusion:Non-medical staff experience that quality in inter-professional communication has a significant impact on health outcomes and patient safety. They expressed a number of difficulties in both written and oral inter-professional communication. For example inadequate written and oral communication, as well as practical issues such as routine could negatively influence the quality of the outcome of inter-professional communication. Lack of feedback from clinicians and radiologists and reduced face-to-face communication were also mentioned as factors that influence oral communication. Possibilities described to improve inter-professional communication quality and thus patient safety were professional contact on both professional and personal levels, use of interpreters, and clear and well-structured referral forms. The results of this study add to our knowledge of the difficulties and possibilities in non-medical inter-professional communication, which may enhance both safety and health outcomes for patients if implemented. Future studies in interprofessional communication is needed.

Dataset Information

Qualitative focus groups with stakeholders identify new potential outcomes related to vaccination communication.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Qualitative focus groups with stakeholders identify new potential outcomes related to vaccination communication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure