Healthcare Providers' Vaccine Perceptions, Hesitancy, and Recommendation to Patients: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lin C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8310254 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine hesitancy among parents contributes to low vaccination coverage in adolescents. To improve health care provider communication and vaccine recommendation practices with hesitant parents, it is important to understand how providers perceive parental HPV vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to characterize perceived reasons for parental HPV vaccine hesitancy and identify factors associated with perceived parental hesitancy among providers at community-based pediatric clinics. METHODS:In 2018, providers in 23 community-based pediatric clinics in Tennessee were invited to complete a Web-based baseline survey as part of a larger quality improvement study focused on HPV vaccine uptake. These survey data were used for a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis. Scale scores ranging from 0 to 100 were calculated for provider self-efficacy (confidence in ability to recommend HPV vaccine), provider outcome expectations (expectations that recommendation will influence parents' decisions), and perceived parental HPV vaccine hesitancy. Provider confidence in HPV vaccine safety and effectiveness were categorized as high versus low. Clinic-level exposures examined were clinic size and rural-urban location. Descriptive analyses were used to characterize perceived parental barriers by provider type. Mixed-effects linear regression models were fit taking one exposure variable at a time, whereas controlling for provider type, age, gender, and race to identify provider- and clinic-level factors associated with perceived parental barriers to HPV vaccination. RESULTS:Of the 187 providers located in the 23 clinics, 137 completed the survey. The majority of physician providers were white and female, with a higher percentage of females among nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The most common parental barriers to HPV vaccination perceived by providers were concerns about HPV vaccine safety (88%), child being too young (78%), low risk of HPV infection for child through sexual activity (70%), and mistrust in vaccines (59%). In adjusted mixed models, perceived parental HPV vaccine hesitancy was significantly associated with several provider-level factors: self-efficacy (P=.001), outcome expectations (P<.001), and confidence in HPV vaccine safety (P=.009). No significant associations were observed between perceived parental HPV vaccine hesitancy and clinic-level factors clinic size nor location. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers developing provider-focused interventions to reduce parental HPV vaccine hesitancy should consider addressing providers' self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and confidence in HPV vaccine safety to help providers communicate more effectively with HPV vaccine hesitant parents.
| S-EPMC6632100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers (HCPs)-including nurses-have played important roles in the vaccination effort. It is expected that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCPs has numerous consequences; however, the scope of these consequences and their impacts on providers, patients, and the broader healthcare system remained unclear.PurposeTo identify existing and emerging evidence to understand the state of knowledge of the consequences of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCPs.MethodsA scoping review was completed based upon the JBI scoping review methodology. The databases searched included OVID Medline, EBSCOhost CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, ProQuest APA PsycInfo, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The final literature search was completed on June 2, 2022. Studies were screened and retrieved based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria using Covidence reference management software. Data extraction followed criteria recommended in the JBI scoping review framework with additional relevant variables identified by the authors.ResultsA total of 33 sources were included in the review. Consequences of HCP COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were grouped under three themes and seven subthemes. Consequences affecting HCPs included health-related, psychosocial, and employment-related consequences. Consequences affecting patients pertained to COVID-19 vaccination communication and COVID-19 vaccination practices of HCPs. Consequences to the healthcare system involved consequences to coworkers and employment/attendance/staffing-related consequences.ConclusionsHealthcare provider COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was found to have numerous consequences. By understanding the scope and extent of these consequences, healthcare leaders, researchers, and HCPs can work together to protect providers, patients, and healthcare systems.
| S-EPMC11308270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral early COVID-19 studies aimed to assess the potential acceptance of a vaccine among healthcare providers, but relatively few studies of this population have been published since the vaccines became widely available. Vaccine safety, speed of development, and low perceived disease risk were commonly cited as factors for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this group.Purpose and methodsIn a secondary analysis based on a cross-sectional, structured survey, the authors aimed to assess the associations between self-reported vaccine hesitancy and a number of sociodemographic and COVID-19 vaccine perception factors using data from 3,295 healthcare providers (physicians, nurses, community health workers, other healthcare providers) in 23 countries.Findings494 (15.0%) of the participants reported vaccine hesitancy, of whom 132 (4.0%) would outright refuse to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Physicians were the least hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy was more likely to occur among those with less than the median income and, to a lesser degree, younger age. Safety and risk concerns and lack of trust that vaccines would be equitably distributed were strongly associated with hesitancy, less so were concerns about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.InterpretationFindings suggest a need to address safety and risk concerns through tailored messaging, training, and/or incentive approaches among healthcare providers, as well as the need for international and national vaccination efforts to ensure equitable distribution.
| S-EPMC9068669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsApps, 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.
| S-EPMC10567238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 challenged our healthcare systems and unsurprisingly, so did its vaccine. Chief among these were the uniquely politicized nature and logistical difficulties surrounding its deployment. Understanding provider attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccines and their willingness/ability to deliver them is essential to developing an ideal vaccine distribution plan for Bexar County, Texas.MethodsAn electronic survey was sent to providers serving adult patients across Bexar County. Membership includes representation from local hospitals, Bexar County Medical Society, and the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District's vaccination program. The survey measured provider attitudes toward the vaccines and asked logistical questions regarding patient hesitancy and clinic infrastructure.ResultsResponses were collected from 66 ZIP codes (90% of ZIP codes in the county), and 377 providers answered the survey. Respondents who were unlikely to recommend the vaccine (3%) shared concerns involving distrust of the vaccine manufacturing process. Recommendations made by physicians to support their vaccine administration efforts included broadening the reporting timeframe (n=35), providing trained support staff (n=18), and improving logistical support (n=14). Furthermore, responses showed that only 14.44% of provider facilities were able to meet originally published refrigeration requirements to store Pfizer's vaccines compared with 87.47% for Moderna's vaccines.ConclusionsSurvey results were used to improve the efficiency of vaccination programs and address vaccine hesitancy through various avenues of information delivery. It is recommended to replicate the outcomes and applications of this study in other populations to improve the efficiency of vaccination programs and reduce vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC9364726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination, albeit a necessity in the prevention of infectious diseases, requires appropriate strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy at an individual and community level. However, there remains a glaring scarcity of available literature in that regard. Therefore, this review aims to scrutinize globally tested interventions to increase the vaccination uptake by addressing vaccine hesitancy at various stages of these interventions across the globe and help policy makers in implementing appropriate strategies to address the issue.MethodsA systematic review of descriptive and analytic studies was conducted using specific key word searches to identify literature containing information about interventions directed at vaccine hesitancy. The search was done using PubMed, Global Health, and Science Direct databases. Data extraction was based on study characteristics such as author details; study design; and type, duration, and outcome of an intervention.ResultsA total of 105 studies were identified of which 33 studies were included in the final review. Community-based interventions, monetary incentives, and technology-based health literacy demonstrated significant improvement in the utilization of immunization services. On the other hand, media-based intervention studies did not bring about a desired change in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionThis study indicates that the strategies should be based on the need and reasons for vaccine hesitancy for the targeted population. A multidimensional approach involving community members, families, and individuals is required to address this challenging issue.
| S-EPMC9044888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy occurs throughout the world and can result in poor vaccine uptake and vaccine-preventable disease-outbreaks. Vaccine hesitancy dates back to the days of Edward Jenner and the smallpox vaccine. It persists despite the preponderance of evidence supporting vaccine safety and effectiveness. Studies show even among parents of well-vaccinated children that 15-35% of those parents are vaccine-hesitant. Studies have failed to show the efficacy of educational interventions, and, indeed, a number of studies of educational interventions show a contrarian effect leaving the vaccine-hesitant more entrenched in their views. Still dozens of studies support health care provider recommendation as a major factor in achieving high rates of vaccine uptake. Furthermore, studies find those recommendations perceived as stronger are more effective than those perceived as weaker. What makes for a stronger recommendation? Several observational studies indicate that presumptive, announcement language as contrasted with participatory, conversational language makes for a stronger more effective recommendation. Several trials now demonstrate that health care providers and practices can implement this language and obtain higher vaccination uptake. The authors recommend the practice be adopted as a routine practice in the clinical setting for all vaccinations.
| S-EPMC7553710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelivery of effective healthcare is contingent on the quality of communication between the patient and the healthcare provider. Little is known about primary healthcare providers' perceptions of communication with patients in Rwanda.AimTo explore providers' perceptions of patient-provider communication (PPC) and analyse the ways in which providers present and reflect on communication practice and problems.MethodsQualitative, in-depth, semi structured interviews with nine primary health care providers. An abductive analysis supplemented by the framework method was applied. A narrative approach allowed the emergence of archetypical narratives on PPC.ResultsProviders shared rich reflections on the importance of proper communication with patients and appeared committed to making their interaction work optimally. Still, providers had difficulty critically analysing limitations of their communication in practice. Reported communication issues included lack of communication training as well as time and workload issues. Two archetypes of narratives on PPC issues and practice emerged and are discussed.ConclusionWhile providers' narratives put patients at the centre of care, there were indications that patient-provider communication training and practice need further development. In-depth exploration of highlighted issues and adapted strategies to tackle communication drawbacks are prerequisites to improvement. This study contributes to the advancement of knowledge related to communication between the patient and the provider in a resource-limited setting.
| S-EPMC5884556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment adherence is a vital aspect in the management of chronic diseases like leprosy; however, most studies on treatment adherence focus on patients. This study aims to examine the perceptions of healthcare providers on factors that can promote or prevent patients from adhering to treatment.MethodsWe conducted three focus group discussions (FGDs) with healthcare providers who have at least one year experience in managing leprosy in three large leprosy case-holding hospitals in Metro Manila, Philippines. We audio-recorded, transcribed, translated the FGD proceedings, and analyzed the transcripts thematically to identify patient-intrinsic and patient-extrinsic enablers and barriers to treatment adherence of leprosy patients.ResultsPatient-intrinsic motivators to complete treatment include innate desire to be cured, fear of infecting family and friends, fear of disability, good knowledge about the disease, need for medical clearance to be considered fit to work, and experiencing leprosy reactions. Patient-extrinsic motivators to complete treatment include free treatment, immediate and sufficient counselling, flexibility in treatment, follow-up and motivation of healthcare workers, and presence of Hansen's Club and support groups. Patient-intrinsic barriers to good treatment adherence include distance between residence and hospital, financial and opportunity costs, adverse drug reactions, misconceptions about being cured, disabilities and presence of leprosy reactions, stubbornness and/or laziness, and undergoing clinical depression. Patient-extrinsic barriers to good treatment adherence include poor availability of MDT, transfer to other leprosy treatment facilities without informing current facility, and stigma.ConclusionHealthcare providers perceive that patient-intrinsic and patient-extrinsic factors influence the treatment adherence of leprosy patients through different mechanisms. We highlight the role of healthcare provider attitudes, stigma, and support groups in promoting treatment adherence.
| S-EPMC10368771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVaccination is a key strategy to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, among vulnerable groups such as cancer patients. However, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is limiting vaccination uptake in this population as in others. This study aimed to synthesise the emerging literature on vaccine hesitancy in this population and in Oncology health professionals, reasons for and factors associated with hesitancy, and interventions that address hesitancy.MethodsA rapid review was undertaken PubMed, Ovid and Google across all years up to October 2021 for articles in English, from any country or region, addressing the above issues. Individual case studies, opinion pieces, commentary articles and conference abstracts were excluded. Article screening, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted by two authors. A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken.ResultsEighteen eligible articles were identified. Reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates varied from 76.7 % to 3.9 %, with a mean of 38.4 %. A large international study (n > 20,000) reported a more conservative hesitancy rate of 19 %. Six broad, common reasons for hesitancy were identified. Oncologist advice was valued by patients.DiscussionVaccine hesitancy remains a significant concern in the oncology context. Oncologists are key to addressing hesitancy and providing tailored advice to cancer patients.Practice implicationsWhere possible, patients appreciate personalised, tailored information about vaccination which addresses its interaction with cancer and its treatment. Education programmes for oncologists to support effective communication in this context are needed. Webinars and peer-to-peer counselling may be useful but remain to be proven.
| S-EPMC9951090 | biostudies-literature