Search

Background Side-effect concerns are a major barrier to vaccination against COVID-19 and other diseases. Identifying cost- and time-efficient interventions to improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy—without withholding information about side effects—is critical. Purpose Determine whether a brief symptom as positive signals mindset intervention can improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy after the COVID-19 vaccination. Methods English-speaking adults (18+) were recruited during the 15-min wait period after receiving their second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and were randomly allocated to the symptom as positive signals mindset condition or the treatment as usual control. Participants in the mindset intervention viewed a 3:43-min video explaining how the body responds to vaccinations and how common side effects such as fatigue, sore arm, and fever are signs that the vaccination is helping the body boost immunity. The control group received standard vaccination center information. Results Mindset participants (N = 260) versus controls (N = 268) reported significantly less worry about symptoms at day 3 [ t (506)=2.60, p =.01, d =0.23], fewer symptoms immediately following the vaccine [ t (484)=2.75, p =.006, d =0.24], and increased intentions to vaccinate against viruses like COVID-19 in the future [ t (514)=−2.57, p =.01, d =0.22]. No significant differences for side-effect frequency at day 3, coping, or impact. Conclusions This study supports the use of a brief video aimed at reframing symptoms as positive signals to reduce worry and increase future vaccine intentions. Clinical Trial information Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000722897p. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore whether family-centered communication impacts decisions and optimizes patient-companion-provider consultations.Methods: A parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with 108 participants acting as patients with inflammatory arthritis or companions. Pairs attended a mock consultation where a physician explained the change from a bio-originator to a biosimilar using family-centered or patient-only communication. Participants reported their willingness to transition, risk perceptions, understanding and social support, and completed various scales including the Patient Perception Scale. Interviews helped understand perceptions towards the consultation.Results: Family-centered communication did not impact willingness to change or cognitive risk perceptions compared to patient-only communication. However, it improved emotional risk perceptions (p = 0.047, Cohen's d=.55) and satisfaction with communication (p = 0.015, Cohen's d=.71). Feeling the explanation was reassuring was associated with less worry (p = 0.004). Receiving emotional support (p = 0.014) and companions asking fewer questions (p = 0.046) were associated with higher recall. The intervention improved companion involvement (p < 0.001, Cohen's d= 1.23) and support (p = 0.002, Cohen's d=.86). Interviews showed that encouraging questions, inclusive body language, and acknowledging companions facilitated involvement.Conclusion: Family-centered communication augments patient-companion-provider encounters but does not influence willingness to change treatment.Practice Implications: Practitioners can use family-centered communication when discussing biosimilars but should provide reassurance, encourage emotional support, and summarize key points to improve understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]