Use of a language intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Geipel J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742025 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeGiven their negative influence on community health, vaccine hesitancy and resistance are emerging challenges that require healthcare intervention. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact of physician-pharmacist collaborative health coaching on rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsAfter an initial assessment of rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine was conducted, hesitant and resistant participants were approached, recruited, and randomized into an active and control group. Pharmacists-physicians collaborative coaching intervention was delivered to active group subjects over two months through Facebook live sessions. The outcome measures were assessed in both groups before coaching, directly after coaching, and a month after coaching.ResultsThe proportions of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine among subjects in the active group were significantly reduced from 64.3% and 35.7% before coaching to 20.1% and 7.8% directly after coaching, respectively. These proportions were further reduced to 11.1% and 3.3% a month after coaching, respectively. Furthermore, the mean scores for knowledge on, and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine were significantly increased from 4.6 ± 1.8 and 4.1 ± 1.7 before coaching to 7.5 ± 3.1 and 8.9 ± 3.8 directly after coaching, respectively. However, the change in mean score of beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines among active group subjects was not significant.ConclusionHigh rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine were found in Jordan. These rates can be significantly reduced through online pharmacists-physicians collaborative coaching, which can also improve knowledge of and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccines.
| S-EPMC8712432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Having a vaccine available does not necessarily imply that it will be used. Indeed, uptake rates for existing vaccines against infectious diseases have been fluctuating in recent years. Literature suggests that vaccine hesitancy may be grounded in deeply rooted intuitions or values, which can be modelled using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). We examine the respective prominence of the MFT dimensions in government communication regarding childhood vaccinations and explore its effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. We measure the MFT dimension loading of the vaccination information brochures from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) between 2011-2019 and connect this information with the electronic national immunisation register to investigate if the use of moral foundations in government communication has a measurable effect on vaccination uptake. We find the largest positive effect for the dimensions Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression and suggestive evidence in favour of a small positive effect for Purity/Degradation. Conversely, Loyalty/Betrayal actually has a negative effect on vaccination rates. For the dimension Harm/Care, we find no significant effect. While Purity/Degradation and Harm/Care appear to be the two most frequently used moral foundations by RIVM, these dimensions have in fact no or only a minor effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. Reducing the use of these moral foundations may be the first step towards optimising government communication in this context. Instead, formulations activating the moral foundations Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression appear to have positive effects on vaccination uptake.
| S-EPMC8577733 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10789192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Analysis of transcript abundance estimates as a function of demographic, psychometric, and language use features.
2017-12-05 | GSE87656 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundIndividuals on immunosuppressive therapies experience greater morbidity and mortality due to vaccine-preventable illnesses, but there are low rates of adherence to immunization guidelines within this population.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of clinician-led education, patient-centered dialogue, and immediately available immunization on influenza vaccination uptake in patients taking immunosuppressive therapies.MethodWe used a controlled before-and-after quasi-experimental design to evaluate our quality improvement intervention occurring from September 2019 to March 2020, with follow-up through July 2020. The study included 2 dermatology practices wherein nursing staff offered influenza vaccination during patient rooming (standard care). Within each practice, clinicians either implemented the intervention or provided only standard care. Patients received the intervention or standard care depending on the clinician they visited. Patients seen at the 2 clinics during the intervention period were included in analyses if they were taking or newly prescribed immunosuppressant medication at the time of their visit. We examined influenza immunization status for 3 flu seasons: 2017-2018 (preintervention), 2018-2019 (preintervention), and 2019-2020 (intervention).InterventionImmunosuppressed patients initially declining an influenza vaccine were provided dermatologist-led education on the benefits of immunization. Dermatologists explored and addressed individual patients' immunization concerns. Influenza vaccination was then offered immediately postdialogue.ResultsAnalyses included 201 dermatology patients who were prescribed or currently taking immunosuppressive medication (intervention group [72.6%], comparison group [27.4%]). During the intervention period, 91.1% of the intervention group received influenza vaccination compared to 56.4% of the comparison group. Vaccination trends from 2018-2019 (preintervention) to 2019-2020 (intervention) differed significantly between groups (χ2 = 22.92, P < .001), with greater improvement in the intervention group. In 2019-2020, influenza vaccination was more likely in the intervention group relative to the comparison group (odds ratio: 16.22, 95% confidence interval: 5.55-47.38). In the subset of patients that had never received an influenza vaccine, influenza immunization in 2019-2020 was more common in the intervention group (75.8%, 25/33) relative to the comparison group (13.3%, 2/15, P < .001).ConclusionThe intervention successfully addressed vaccine hesitancy and improved influenza immunization rates in an immunosuppressed population receiving care from a specialty clinic. Implementing a similar model across specialty clinics may improve vaccination rates for influenza, coronavirus disease 2019, and other vaccine-preventable illnesses in other populations.
| S-EPMC9333474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) member states have been annually reporting vaccine hesitancy reasons, using the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF). The Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix (VHM), developed by a WHO strategic advisory group of experts, can serve as an important tool to categorize vaccine hesitancy reasons reported in the JRF. We aimed to describe the reasons for vaccine hesitancy reported globally from 2014 to 2017 to ascertain trends over time and understand the comparability of using the VHM to classify hesitancy reasons from 2014 to 2016 based on previously published literature. We conducted a quantitative content analysis to code and categorize vaccine hesitancy reasons reported in the JRF from 2014 to 2017. Vaccine hesitancy trends were consistent from 2014 to 2017, where vaccine hesitancy reasons were mainly related to "individual and group level influences" (59%) followed by "contextual influences" (25%), and "vaccine- or vaccination-specific issues" (16%). Comparability of our approach to categorize vaccine hesitancy to the previously published JRF data showed that results were mostly but not entirely consistent. Major differences in categorizing vaccine hesitancy were noted between two specific reasons - "experience with past vaccination" (under "individual and group influences") and "risk/benefit- scientific evidence" (under "vaccine and vaccination-specific issues"); this was usually due to lack of clear definitions in some sub-categories and generic responses reported in the JRF. The JRF hesitancy module may benefit from modifications to improve the data quality. Understanding global vaccine hesitancy is crucial and JRF can serve as an important tool, especially with the potential introduction of a COVID-19 vaccine.
| S-EPMC8189077 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9004449 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8592521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major impediment to achieving herd immunity and overcoming the current pandemic. Our aim was to decrease the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy through an education intervention.MethodAn education intervention, consisting of a PowerPoint presentation addressing the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine concerns/myths and a question and answer panel comprising health care providers from various specialties, was implemented to address vaccine hesitancy among personnel associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through a series of virtual and in-person seminars. Participants completed a post-seminar survey as a retrospective self-assessment to identify attitudes and views surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the impact of the education intervention. Chi-squared test was used to examine relationships between categorical variables, and multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for vaccine hesitancy pre- and post-seminar. All analyses were done using SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Institutional Review Board approval was not obtained before this study as it began as a non-research initiative and received non-research determination post hoc.ResultsFive hundred participants completed the survey. Mean age was 44.7 years with 13.4 and 86.6% medical and non-medical personnel, respectively. Nearly all (98.8%) had not received their first shot of the vaccine series. 402 (80.9%) were receptive to vaccination, and 95 (19.1%) were hesitant post-seminar. Of the 139 participants who reported they were initially hesitant after our intervention, 50 (36%) indicated that they were now receptive to the vaccine, while 89 (64%) remained hesitant. Of those 50, 48 (96%) had moderate to great amount of trust in COVID-19 vaccine information presented by physicians/other providers. Six respondents who wanted the vaccine before the intervention no longer wanted the vaccine. A medical occupation (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 2.63-8.96, P < .001), little or no trust in COVID-19 vaccine information from physicians/other providers (OR = 19.48, 95% CI = 7.31-51.90, P < 0.001), and being age 30 or younger (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.02-3.2, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Trust in providers was a significant factor in change of intent from vaccine hesitant to receptive post-intervention (OR 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.59, P = .008). Age and occupation were not significant factors associated with change in intent.ConclusionOur education intervention was effective in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Study limitations include applications toward other military and non-military populations, the possibility of nonresponse bias, and absence of prior validated interventions. Area for future studies includes improvement upon educational intervention, development of other effective methods, and application of intervention in other populations.
| S-EPMC8500140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immunization programmes have been globally recognized as one of the most successful medical interventions against infectious diseases. Despite the proven efficacy and safety profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, there are still a substantial number of people who express vaccine hesitancy. Factors that influence vaccine decision-making are heterogenous, complex, and context specific and may be caused or amplified by uncontrolled online information or misinformation. With respect to COVID-19, the recent emergence of novel variants of concern that give rise to milder disease also drives vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals remain one of the most trusted groups to advise and provide information to those ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and should be equipped with adequate resources and information as well as practical guidance to empower them to effectively discuss concerns. This article seeks to summarize the currently available information to address the most common concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC9225513 | biostudies-literature