Dataset Information

Determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland: study protocol of a mixed-methods national research programme.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Vaccine hesitancy is a complex public health issue referring to concerns about the safety, efficacy or need for vaccination. Relatively little is known about vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland. This ongoing study (2017-2021) focuses on biomedical and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers and their patients since healthcare professionals play important roles in vaccination decision-making. This national research programme seeks to assess the sociocultural determinants of vaccine hesitancy regarding childhood and human papillomavirus vaccines in Switzerland. We aim to provide a detailed characterisation of vaccine hesitancy, including CAM and biomedical perspectives, patient-provider interactions, and sociocultural factors, to establish the mediating effects of vaccine hesitancy on underimmunisation, and to design an intervention to improve vaccination communication and counselling among physicians, parents and adolescents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Our transdisciplinary team employs a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study design. We have established a network of more than 150 medical providers across Switzerland, including more than 40 CAM practitioners. For the qualitative component, we conduct interviews with parents, youth, and biomedical and CAM providers and observations of vaccination consultations and school vaccination information sessions. For the quantitative component, a sample of 1350 parents of young children and 722 young adults (15-26 years) and their medical providers respond to questionnaires. We measure vaccine hesitancy with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines 15-item survey and review vaccination certificates to assess vaccination status. We administer additional questions based on findings from qualitative research, addressing communication with medical providers, vaccine information sources and perceptions of risk control vis-à-vis vaccine-preventable diseases. The questionnaires capture sociodemographics, political views, religion and spirituality, and moral foundations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the local ethics committee. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to healthcare professionals, researchers and the public via conferences and public presentations.

SUBMITTER: Deml MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830664 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland: study protocol of a mixed-methods national research programme.

Deml Michael J MJ Jafflin Kristen K Merten Sonja S Huber Benedikt B Buhl Andrea A Frau Eleonora E Mettraux Valérie V Sonderegger Joanna J Kliem Paulina P Cattalani Rachele R Krüerke Daniel D Pfeiffer Constanze C Burton-Jeangros Claudine C Tarr Philip E PE

BMJ open 20191102 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Vaccine hesitancy is a complex public health issue referring to concerns about the safety, efficacy or need for vaccination. Relatively little is known about vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland. This ongoing study (2017-2021) focuses on biomedical and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers and their patients since healthcare professionals play important roles in vaccination decision-making. This national research programme seeks to assess the sociocultural deter ...[more]

PMID: 31678955

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Urban living has been shown to affect health in various ways. As the world is becoming more urbanised and almost two-thirds of people with diabetes now live in cities, research into the relationship between urban living, health and diabetes is key to improving the lives of many. The majority of people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes, a subset linked to overweight and obesity, decreased physical activity and unhealthy diets. Diabetes has significant consequences for those living with the condition as well as their families, relationships and wider society. Although care and management are improving, complications remain common, and diabetes is among the leading causes of vision loss, amputation, neuropathy and renal and cardiovascular disease worldwide. We present a research protocol for exploring the drivers of type 2 diabetes and its complications in urban settings through the Cities Changing Diabetes (CCD) partnership programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A global study protocol is implemented in eight collaborating CCD partner cities. In each city, academic institutions, municipal representatives and local stakeholders collaborate to set research priorities and plan implementation of findings. Local academic teams execute the study following the global study protocol presented here. A quantitative Rule of Halves analysis obtains measures of the magnitude of the diabetes burden, the diagnosis rates in each city and the outcomes of care. A qualitative Diabetes Vulnerability Assessment explores the urban context in vulnerability to type 2 diabetes and identifies social factors and cultural determinants relevant to health, well-being and diabetes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol steers the collection of primary and secondary data across the study sites. Research ethics board approval has been sought and obtained in each site. Findings from each of the local studies as well as the result from combined multisite (global) analyses will be reported in a series of core scientific journal papers.

Project description:BackgroundNovel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to achieving herd immunity, and thus, a prominent public health concern. This study aimed to identify the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy based on the World Health Organization's '3Cs' model (i.e., confidence, complacency, and convenience) in the United States (U.S.) and Canada.MethodsData from 7678 adults ages 18 or older were collected from the four most populous U.S. States, specifically New York, California, Florida, and Texas, and from English-speaking Canada at three timepoints, in May and July 2020, and March 2021 using a web-based survey (www.covid19-database.com). Sociodemographic information was collected, and comprehensive psychological assessments were administered. Univariate analyses were performed to identify the individual determinants of vaccine hesitancy, which were categorized as: 1) vaccine confidence, 2) vaccine complacency, 3) sociodemographic, and 4) other psychological factors. A series of models were computed using these categorizations.ResultsMistrust of vaccine benefit (β(SE) = 0.67(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.26) and lower perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (β(SE) = 0.68(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.12) were the principal determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Right-wing political affiliation (β(SE) = 0.32(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), higher risk propensity (β(SE) = 0.24(0.02), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03), and less negative mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (β(SE) = 0.20(0.01), p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.03) were the main sociodemographic and psychological determinants. Other sociodemographic determinants included younger age, women, race, and employment status. Lack of vaccine confidence and complacency explained 38% and 21% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively; whereas, sociodemographic and psychological determinants explained 13% and 11% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy, respectively.DiscussionTargeted and tailored public health interventions that enhance the public's confidence in vaccines and emphasize the risk and seriousness of COVID-19 may address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Efforts directed toward specific marginalized and underserved groups may be required to promote vaccine confidence.

Project description:BackgroundThere currently are no mandatory vaccines in Switzerland. However, Swiss federal legislation allows for vaccination mandates in settings where the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups is high, such as healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with vulnerable patients. Since HCPs are trusted information sources, a priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, and potentially subjected to mandates, we investigated HCP perspectives on mandates.MethodsA national online survey was administered to HCPs (October 2020-March 2021), including vaccine mandates questions concerning patients (measles) and HCPs (influenza). We qualitatively investigated HCP mandate perspectives through: (1) 34 interviews with HCPs, HCP professional society representatives, and health authorities; (2) a focus group discussion (FGD) with complementary medicine (CM) and biomedical physicians, and Swiss Federal Vaccination Commission members.Results1933 participants (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives) responded to the survey. Quantitative results show all professional groups preferred shared parent-HCP measles vaccine decisions (65%, 54%, 50%, 48%, respectively; p for trend < 0.001). Midwives (87%) and nurses (70%) preferred individual influenza vaccination decisions for HCPs, while physicians (49%) and pharmacists (44%) preferred shared employee-employer decisions (p for trend < 0.001). Physicians (p < .001) and pharmacists (p < .01) with CM training favored individual influenza vaccination decisions. Qualitative results show general HCP opposition to vaccine mandates, mainly because participants argued how other approaches, such as HCP training and better information, could encourage uptake. Arguments against COVID-19 mandates included insufficiently documented long-term safety/efficacy data. From participants' perspectives, mandated vaccination should be used as a last resort. Some participants expressed fear that with mandates, notably for influenza and COVID-19, some HCPs might leave their jobs. HCPs were unsure what vaccine mandates would concretely look like in practice, particularly regarding sanctions for non-compliance and enforcement.ConclusionIn Switzerland, HCPs generally were opposed to vaccination mandates. Clarity and guidance are needed from health authorities to better inform discussions around vaccine mandates.

Project description:Behaviour change is key to combating antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes promote and monitor judicious antibiotic use, but there is little consideration of behavioural and social influences when designing interventions. We outline a programme of research which aims to co-design AMS interventions across healthcare settings, by integrating data-science, evidence- synthesis, behavioural-science and user-centred design. The project includes three work-packages (WP): WP1 (Identifying patterns of prescribing): analysis of electronic health-records to identify prescribing patterns in care-homes, primary-care, and secondary-care. An online survey will investigate consulting/antibiotic-seeking behaviours in members of the public. WP2 (Barriers and enablers to prescribing in practice): Semi-structured interviews and observations of practice to identify barriers/enablers to prescribing, influences on antibiotic-seeking behaviour and the social/contextual factors underpinning prescribing. Systematic reviews of AMS interventions to identify the components of existing interventions associated with effectiveness. Design workshops to identify constraints influencing the form of the intervention. Interviews conducted with healthcare-professionals in community pharmacies, care-homes, primary-, and secondary-care and with members of the public. Topic guides and analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Observations conducted in care-homes, primary and secondary-care with analysis drawing on grounded theory. Systematic reviews of interventions in each setting will be conducted, and interventions described using the Behaviour Change Technique taxonomy v1. Design workshops in care-homes, primary-, and secondary care. WP3 (Co-production of interventions and dissemination). Findings will be integrated to identify opportunities for interventions, and assess whether existing interventions target influences on antibiotic use. Stakeholder panels will be assembled to co-design and refine interventions in each setting, applying the Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and Equity (APEASE) criteria to prioritise candidate interventions. Outputs will inform development of new AMS interventions and/or optimisation of existing interventions. We will also develop web-resources for stakeholders providing analyses of antibiotic prescribing patterns, prescribing behaviours, and evidence reviews.

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising steeply. National Health Service England (NHSE) is exploring the potential of a digital diabetes prevention programme (DDPP) and has commissioned a pilot with embedded evaluation.Methods and analysisThis study aims to determine whether, and if so, how, should NHSE implement a national DDPP, using a mixed-methods pretest and post-test design, underpinned by two theoretical frameworks: the Coventry, Aberdeen and London - Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy of behavioural change techniques for the digital interventions and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for implementation processes. In eight pilot areas across England, adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 42-47 mmol/mol or fasting plasma glucose 5.5-6.9 mmol/L) and adults without NDH who are overweight (body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2) or obese (BMI >30 kg/m2) will be referred to one of five digitally delivered diabetes prevention interventions. The primary outcomes are reduction in HbA1c and weight (for people with NDH) and reduction in weight (for people who are overweight or obese) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include use of the intervention, satisfaction, physical activity, patient activation and resources needed for successful implementation. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline, 6 months and 12 months by the digital intervention providers. Qualitative data will be collected through semistructured interviews with commissioners, providers, healthcare professionals and patients. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and using generalised linear models to determine whether changes in outcomes are associated with demographic and intervention factors. Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis, with data pertaining to implementation mapped onto the CFIR.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the Public Health England Ethics and Research Governance Group (reference R&D 324). Dissemination will include a report to NHSE to inform future policy and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:Background: Approval for the use of COVID-19 vaccines has been granted in a number of countries but there are concerns that vaccine uptake may be low amongst certain groups. Methods: This study used a mixed methods approach based on online survey and an embedded quantitative/qualitative design to explore perceptions and attitudes that were associated with intention to either accept or refuse offers of vaccination in different demographic groups during the early stages of the UK's mass COVID-19 vaccination programme (December 2020). Analysis used multivariate logistic regression, structural text modeling and anthropological assessments. Results: Of 4,535 respondents, 85% (n = 3,859) were willing to have a COVID-19 vaccine. The rapidity of vaccine development and uncertainties about safety were common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. There was no evidence for the widespread influence of mis-information, although broader vaccine hesitancy was associated with intentions to refuse COVID-19 vaccines (OR 20.60, 95% CI 14.20-30.30, p < 0.001). Low levels of trust in the decision-making (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08, 2.48, p = 0.021) and truthfulness (OR 8.76, 95% CI 4.15-19.90, p < 0.001) of the UK government were independently associated with higher odds of refusing COVID-19 vaccines. Compared to political centrists, conservatives and liberals were, respectively, more (OR 2.05, 95%CI 1.51-2.80, p < 0.001) and less (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.41, p < 0.001) likely to refuse offered vaccines. Those who were willing to be vaccinated cited both personal and public protection as reasons, with some alluding to having a sense of collective responsibility. Conclusion: Dominant narratives of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy are misconceived as primarily being driven by misinformation. Key indicators of UK vaccine acceptance include prior behaviors, transparency of the scientific process of vaccine development, mistrust in science and leadership and individual political views. Vaccine programmes should leverage the sense of altruism, citizenship and collective responsibility that motivated many participants to get vaccinated.

Dataset Information

Determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland: study protocol of a mixed-methods national research programme.

Publications

Determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland: study protocol of a mixed-methods national research programme.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets