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:Background and aimsTo sustainably address challenges in implementing precision medicine (PM), coordinated efforts of different stakeholders are required. Understanding their expectations represents a first key step toward aligning on future actions and strategies. Here, we aimed to explore the expectations of different stakeholders from themselves and each other regarding PM.MethodsThis collaborative qualitative study was initiated by the global multistakeholder consortium From Testing to Targeted Treatments (FT3). Structured interviews were conducted with participants from five stakeholder groups: patients/patient advocates, healthcare providers (HCPs), researchers, policymakers/regulators/payers and industry representatives. A broad reach across geography, roles, experiences, and disease areas was sought. Results were analyzed by grounded theory methodology.ResultsAll stakeholders stated that optimal implementation of PM can only be achieved through collaboration; industry representatives were the biggest promoters of collaboration. Stakeholders agreed that PM should be implemented focusing on the patient's best interest; HCPs were seen as important gatekeepers for PM by interacting directly with patients, and policymakers/payers were perceived as the most important drivers of access to PM. Areas of misalignment included the role of industry in clinical trial design and in access to PM (perceived as important by patients, HCPs and policymakers but not by industry representatives), and the stakeholders responsible for elaborating guidelines on PM use (patients indicated policymakers, while researchers indicated themselves). Priorities for optimal PM implementation and suggested actions included the need for enhancing high-level policy focus, improving genomic literacy, optimizing the health technology assessment for PM, advocating for equitable access, promoting collaboration between industry and other stakeholder groups and development of reliable research standards.ConclusionStakeholder expectations revealed in this study suggested that no stakeholder group can drive change on its own; a global, multistakeholder collaborative approach that brings together current programs and best practices to support universal access to PM is needed.

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: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: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:ObjectiveTo improve consumer decision making, the results of risk assessments on food, feed, consumer products or chemicals need to be communicated not only to experts but also to non-expert audiences. The present study draws on evidence from literature reviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders to identify content to integrate into an existing risk assessment communication (Risk Profile).MethodsA combination of rapid literature reviews and focus groups with experts (risk assessors (n = 15), risk managers (n = 8)), and non-experts (general public (n = 18)) were used to identify content and strategies for including information about risk assessment results in the "Risk Profile" from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Feedback from initial focus groups was used to develop communication prototypes that informed subsequent feedback rounds in an iterative process. A final prototype was validated in usability tests with experts.ResultsFocus group feedback and suggestions from risk assessors were largely in line with findings from the literature. Risk managers and lay persons offered similar suggestions on how to improve the existing communication of risk assessment results (e.g., including more explanatory detail, reporting probabilities for individual health impairments, and specifying risks for subgroups in additional sections). Risk managers found information about quality of evidence important to communicate, whereas people from the general public found this information less relevant. Participants from lower educational backgrounds had difficulties understanding the purpose of risk assessments. User tests found that the final prototype was appropriate and feasible to implement by risk assessors.ConclusionAn iterative and evidence-based process was used to develop content to improve the communication of risk assessments to the general public while being feasible to use by risk assessors. Remaining challenges include how to communicate dose-response relationships and standardise quality of evidence ratings across disciplines.

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

Tweets