The Vaccine-Hesitant Moment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Larson HJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258752 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy is one of the main threats to global health, as became clear once more during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccination campaigns could benefit from appeals to social norms to promote vaccination, but without awareness of the social norm in place any intervention relying on social norms may backfire. We present a two-step approach of social norm diagnosis and intervention that identifies both whether a vaccination norm exists or develops over time and corrects misperceptions. In two studies (N=887 and N=412) conducted in Rome, Italy from June to August 2021 (during the first COVID-19 vaccination campaign), we show that vaccine-hesitant people strongly underestimated vaccine acceptance rates for COVID-19 despite increases in region-wide vaccination rates. This suggests a false consensus bias on the social norm of vaccination. We presented a subgroup of vaccine-hesitant people with the accurate vaccine acceptance rates (both planned uptake and vaccine approval) and tested if this social information would lower their vaccine hesitancy. We do not find clear effects, most likely because of the introduction of the COVID-19 health certificate (the "green pass") that was implemented during our data collection. The green pass reduced both misperceptions in the social norm and vaccine hesitancy, thus undermining our treatment effect. We conclude that to alleviate misperceptions on the social norm of vaccination in early stages of the vaccination campaign governments and media should report not just the current vaccination rate, but also about vaccination intentions and approval.
| S-EPMC10165803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is concern over the increase in the number of "vaccine-hesitant" parents, which contributes to under-vaccinated populations and reduced herd immunity. Traditional studies investigating parental immunization beliefs and practices have relied on random digit dialing (RDD); however, this method presents increasing limitations. Facebook is the most used social media platform in Canada and presents an opportunity to recruit vaccine-hesitant parents in a novel manner.The study aimed to explore the use of Facebook as a tool to reach vaccine-hesitant parents, as compared with RDD methods.We recruited Canadian parents over 4 weeks in 2013-14 via targeted Facebook advertisements linked to a Web-based survey. We compared methodological parameters, key parental demographics, and three vaccine hesitancy indicators to an RDD sample of Canadian parents. Two raters categorized respondent reasons for difficulties in deciding to vaccinate, according to the model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy developed by the World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization.The Facebook campaign received a total of 4792 clicks from unique users, of whom 1696 started the Web-based survey. The total response rate of fully completed unique Web-based surveys was 22.89% (1097/4792) and the survey completion rate was 64.68% (1097/1696). The total cost including incentives was reasonable (Can $4861.19). The Web-based sample yielded younger parents, with 85.69% (940/1097) under the age of 40 years as compared with 23.38% (408/1745) in the RDD sample; 91.43% (1003/1097) of the Facebook respondents were female as compared with 59.26% (1034/1745) in the RDD sample. Facebook respondents had a lower median age of their youngest child (1 year vs 8 years for RDD). When compared with the RDD sample, the Web-based sample yielded a significantly higher proportion of respondents reporting vaccines as moderately safe to not safe (26.62% [292/1097] vs 18.57% [324/1745]), partially or not at all up-to-date vaccination status of youngest child (22.06% [242/1097] vs 9.57% [167/1745]), and difficulty in making the decision to vaccinate their youngest child (21.06% [231/1097] vs 10.09% [176/1745]). Out of the Web-based respondents who reported reasons for the difficulties in deciding to vaccinate, 37.2% (83/223) reported lack of knowledge or trust due to conflicting information and 23.8% (53/223) reported the perception of the risk of the adverse effects of vaccines being higher than the risk of disease acquisition.We successfully recruited a large sample of our target population at low cost and achieved a high survey completion rate using Facebook. When compared with the RDD sampling strategy, we reached more vaccine-hesitant parents and younger parents with younger children-a population more likely to be making decisions on childhood immunizations. Facebook is a promising economical modality for reaching vaccine-hesitant parents for studies on the determinants of vaccine uptake.
| S-EPMC5547248 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundParents use alternative protective methods instead of having their children vaccinated because of their various concerns.AimsThe aim of this study is to examine the processes by which the parents preferred alternative methods rather than the vaccines to strengthen their child's immune system.MethodsSemi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 parents who had vaccine hesitancy. The study sample consisted of parents whose children were between the ages of 0 and 18 years and who experienced vaccine hesitancy and lived in Turkey. The interviews with individuals were conducted online and aimed to be representative of the population of Turkey.ResultsThe factors that caused parental vaccine hesitancy were various, such as vaccine contents, distrust of healthcare workers and false information about vaccines. Because of these factors, parents resorted to natural nutrition, vitamin support and some other precautions, such as avoiding takeaway food or preparing homemade food, rather than having their children vaccinated.ConclusionsIn recent years, it is thought that parents need education about vaccination; outbreaks may be caused by immigrant children who cannot be registered, and therefore cannot be vaccinated, in Turkey, which has received immigration at a high rate.
| S-EPMC8899307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the introduction of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions such as precautionary behaviours. The current study used affective priming to evaluate COVID-19 attitudes in vaccine-hesitant and pro-vaccine participants. Explicitly, both groups rated their overall perception of risk associated with contracting COVID-19 significantly lower compared to their perception of necessary precautions and overall adherence to public health measures. Pro-vaccine participants rated their perception of necessary precautions higher compared to vaccine-hesitant participants. During baseline measures, both groups classified COVID-19 affiliated words as unpleasant. Affective priming was observed for congruent prime-target pleasant and unpleasant word pairs but was not observed for COVID-19 related word pairs. Differences between groups in the perception of necessary public health precautions points to different underlying pathways for reduced perceived risk and lack of affective priming. These results refine previous findings indicating that implicit attitudes towards COVID-19 can be measured using the affective priming paradigm.
| S-EPMC10240302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Parental vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern. Less is known about provider or practice characteristics that encounter HPV-specific vaccine-hesitant parents, the providers' confidence in responding to HPV vaccine concerns, and the attitudes and use of vaccine dismissal policies (i.e., removing patients from the practice). North Texas providers completed an online survey. Dependent variables assessed: (1) percentage of HPV vaccine-hesitant parents encountered in practice defined as substantive, or high (≥11%, or among more than one out of ten adolescent patient encounters) versus low (≤10%) levels; (2) confidence in responding to 11 HPV vaccine concerns; (3) attitudes and use of vaccine dismissal policies. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. Among 156 providers, 29% reported high HPV vaccine hesitancy (≥11% of patient population). Overall, providers reported being "very confident" in addressing vaccine concerns (mean: 3.37 out of 4, SD: 0.57). Mean confidence scores were significantly higher for white (vs. non-white) providers and for pediatricians (vs. family practitioners). Providers were least confident in responding to parents' religious/personal beliefs (69%). Some providers (25%) agreed with policies that dismissed vaccine-hesitant parents after repeated counseling attempts. More providers used dismissal policies for childhood (19%) than adolescent (10%) immunizations. Provider communication training should include parental religious/personal beliefs to effectively address HPV vaccine hesitancy. Other regions should examine their HPV-specific vaccine hesitancy levels to understand how the use of dismissal policies might vary between adolescent and childhood immunizations.
| S-EPMC8683895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is an issue of global concern. The quality of communication between healthcare providers and parents can influence parental immunization acceptance. We aimed to describe immunization uptake following specialist immunization clinic (SIC) consultation for Australian children of VH parents as a cohort, and according to pre-clinic parental position on immunization. At a single tertiary pediatric SIC (RCH, Melbourne) a retrospective descriptive study classified VH families according to 3 proposed parental positions on immunization at initial clinic attendance. Immunization status at follow up was ascertained via the Australian Children's Immunization Register and National HPV Program Register and compared between groups. Of the VH cohort, 13/38 (34%) families were classified as hesitant, 21 (55%) as late/selective vaccinators and 4 (11%) as vaccine refusers. Mean follow up post-SIC attendance was 14.5 months. For the overall VH cohort, the majority chose selective immunization (42%) following SIC consultation. When analyzed by pre-clinic parental position on immunization, there was a trend for hesitant families to proceed with full immunization, selective families to continue selective immunization and refusing families to remain unimmunised (p < 0.0001). The most commonly omitted vaccines were hepatitis B (66%) and Haemophilus influenzae type B (55%), followed by the meningococcal C conjugate vaccine (53%) and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (53%). Immunization outcome appears to correlate with pre-clinic parental position on immunization for the majority of families attending a SIC in Australia, with selective immunization the most common outcome. Tailored communication approaches based on parental position on immunization may optimise clinic resources and engagement of families, but require prospective research evaluation.
| S-EPMC5054782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile anti-vaccine messages on social media have been studied for content, reach, and effectiveness, less is known about those who create and promote the messages. Online influencers, or 'everyday people who are influential within their online social networks', are viewed as trusted voices who are often making similar life decisions as their followers. Therefore, their experiences with and perspectives on health issues can be persuasive.MethodsWe collaborated with a formal network of online influencers to interview, using a semi-structured interview guide, vaccine hesitant influencer mothers about their views on vaccination; their process for developing health-related social media content; their motivation to promote anti-vaccine messages; and their opinions on current vaccination messaging. Prescreening ensured a diverse sample by race/ethnicity, age, education, number of children, and geographic residence. Interviews occurred by telephone, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Themes were generated independently by two coders using a deductive coding approach.ResultsWe interviewed 15 online influencer mothers from across the U.S. (average age 39 years old; all married; 13 Caucasian, 1 African American, 1 Hispanic). In some capacity, 5 of the 15 wrote about vaccination on their blog. Those who chose not to post anti-vaccine content did so for fear of alienating followers or having their platform be the site of combative discourse among readers. When researching their social media posts, the influencers did not trust mainstream sources of health information and relied on alternative sources and search engines.ImplicationsThis exploratory study interviewed influential mothers who have the ability to spread anti-vaccine messages on social media. While most do not contribute to the anti-vaccine sentiment, understanding the motivation and practices of those that do assists the public health community in better understanding the online vaccination communication environment, leading to more effective messages to counterbalance anti-vaccine content on social media.
| S-EPMC8152170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesResearch has shown that physicians are encountering an increase in vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs) numbers. This study examined physicians' vaccination knowledge, vaccine-related discussions with VHPs, beliefs about and responses to vaccine hesitancy, and challenges faced while discussing immunization with VHPs.MethodsThis cross-sectional, descriptive study was performed at King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in September 2020. The data were collected through a questionnaire distributed via email. The sample comprised 90 physicians who routinely treat children and reported they frequently have appropriate vaccine discussions when encountering VHPs.ResultsNinety participants (59% were females) completed the questionnaire. Of these, 37.8% were from family medicine, 7.8% from primary care, and 54.4% from paediatrics. The most discussed topics were vaccine necessity, reasons for vaccine refusal, and vaccine safety. Seventeen participants (18.8%) reported being extremely confident, and (42.2%) were confident in their vaccine-specific knowledge. Regarding confidence in communication skills, 22.2% reported being extremely confident and (45.6%) were confident. Determinants of higher confidence in the knowledge and communication skills were physician age (p = 0.001 and p = 0.0001, respectively), years of practice (p = 0.002 and (p = 0.005), and patients seen per workday (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.024). Other factors such as physician sex (p = 0.062), the field of practice (p = 0.329), and hours of work per week (p = 0.061) were not significantly different. Forty-six (51%) physicians sometimes find it challenging to conduct appropriate vaccine-related discussions because of having too many other issues to discuss during the consultation. Furthermore, 53 (59%) participants agreed/strongly agreed that parental refusal to vaccinate would raise suspicions of negligence. On the other hand, 59 (65%) disagreed/strongly disagreed that parental refusal of vaccines is a parental right. Participants expressed the need to refer VHPs to a specialised advisory clinic with excellent experience and negotiation skills to overcome the challenges.ConclusionVaccine safety and necessity are the topics of most concern to VHPs, and a knowledgeable physician with competent communication skills is critical in responding to such situations. This study highlights the most reported barriers to successful vaccine-related discussions. It raises underlying ethical principles such as parental autonomy and the need to train physicians in VHPs. To train physians for succucful vaccine counceling of VHPs.
| S-EPMC10478439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo test the impact of varied physician recommendations on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.MethodsWe conducted a vignette-based experimental survey on Prolific, an online research platform. COVID-19 vaccine hesitant, adult panel members were assigned to one of five messages that varied by recommendation style (participatory vs explicit) and strategy (acknowledgement of concerns; comparison to the flu shot; statement that millions of people have already received it; emphasis on protecting others). Vaccine hesitancy was re-assessed with the question, "Would you get vaccinated at this visit?".ResultsOf the 752 participants, 60.1% were female, 43.4% Black, 23.6% Latino, and 33.0% White; mean age was 35.6 years. Overall, 33.1% of the initially "not sure" and 13.1% of the initially "no" participants became less hesitant following any recommendation. Among the "not sure" participants, 20.3% of those who received a participatory recommendation became less hesitant compared with 34.3%- 39.5% for the explicit recommendations. The "protect others" message was most effective among initially "no" participants; 19.8% become less hesitant, compared to 8.7% for the participatory recommendation.ConclusionA physician recommendation may reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.Practice implicationsAn explicit recommendation and "protect others" message appear to be important elements of a physician recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC9523946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination delivery and efforts to counter vaccine hesitancy have become focal issues for family medicine teams as the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved. Conducting action research, our team developed an interactive web-based guide to improve clinical conversations around a broad range of vaccine hesitancies presented by patients. The paper presents a step-by-step account of the guide being codesigned with family physicians-its targeted end users-in a process that included validation interviews; role-play interviews; and user-tested design. The validation interviews sought to understand the pragmatic realities of vaccine hesitancy in family medicine clinical practice relative to relevant psychological theories. The role-play interviews drew out conversational strategies and advice from family physicians. The principles of motivational interviewing-an evidence-based approach to vaccine hesitancy conversations that supplements information deficit approaches-were used to codesign the content and layout of the guide. User counts, stakeholder engagement, and web-based analytics indicate the guide is being used extensively. Formal evaluation of the guide is presently underway.Originally published as Annals "Online First" article.
| S-EPMC9328713 | biostudies-literature