Search

Identifying effective interventions to promote children's vaccination acceptance is crucial for the health and wellbeing of communities. Many interventions can be implemented to increase parental awareness of the benefits of vaccination and positively influence their confidence in vaccines and vaccination services. One potential approach is using narratives as an intervention. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a narrative-based intervention on parents' attitudes and vaccination intentions. In a pre-post experiment, 2,000 parents of young children recruited from an online pan-Canadian panel were randomly exposed to one of the three videos presenting narratives to promote childhood vaccination or a control condition video about the importance and benefits of physical activity in children. Pre-post measures reveal a relatively modest but positive impact of the narratives on parents' attitudes and intention to vaccinate their child(ren). The results also suggest that narratives with more emotional content may be more effective in positively influencing vaccine attitudes than the more factual narrative. Using narratives to promote vaccination can positively influence parents' views and intentions toward childhood vaccines, but research is still required to identify the best components of such interventions.

Background: Herd immunity or community immunity refers to the reduced risk of infection among susceptible individuals in a population through the presence and proximity of immune individuals. Recent studies suggest that improving the understanding of community immunity may increase intentions to get vaccinated., Objective: This study aims to design a web application about community immunity and optimize it based on users' cognitive and emotional responses., Methods: Our multidisciplinary team developed a web application about community immunity to communicate epidemiological evidence in a personalized way. In our application, people build their own community by creating an avatar representing themselves and 8 other avatars representing people around them, for example, their family or coworkers. The application integrates these avatars in a 2-min visualization showing how different parameters (eg, vaccine coverage, and contact within communities) influence community immunity. We predefined communication goals, created prototype visualizations, and tested four iterative versions of our visualization in a university-based human-computer interaction laboratory and community-based settings (a cafeteria, two shopping malls, and a public library). Data included psychophysiological measures (eye tracking, galvanic skin response, facial emotion recognition, and electroencephalogram) to assess participants' cognitive and affective responses to the visualization and verbal feedback to assess their interpretations of the visualization's content and messaging., Results: Among 110 participants across all four cycles, 68 (61.8%) were women and 38 (34.5%) were men (4/110, 3.6%; not reported), with a mean age of 38 (SD 17) years. More than half (65/110, 59.0%) of participants reported having a university-level education. Iterative changes across the cycles included adding the ability for users to create their own avatars, specific signals about who was represented by the different avatars, using color and movement to indicate protection or lack of protection from infectious disease, and changes to terminology to ensure clarity for people with varying educational backgrounds. Overall, we observed 3 generalizable findings. First, visualization does indeed appear to be a promising medium for conveying what community immunity is and how it works. Second, by involving multiple users in an iterative design process, it is possible to create a short and simple visualization that clearly conveys a complex topic. Finally, evaluating users' emotional responses during the design process, in addition to their cognitive responses, offers insights that help inform the final design of an intervention., Conclusions: Visualization with personalized avatars may help people understand their individual roles in population health. Our app showed promise as a method of communicating the relationship between individual behavior and community health. The next steps will include assessing the effects of the application on risk perception, knowledge, and vaccination intentions in a randomized controlled trial. This study offers a potential road map for designing health communication materials for complex topics such as community immunity., (©Hina Hakim, Julie A Bettinger, Christine T Chambers, S Michelle Driedger, Eve Dubé, Teresa Gavaruzzi, Anik M C Giguere, Éric Kavanagh, Julie Leask, Shannon E MacDonald, Rita Orji, Elizabeth Parent, Jean-Sébastien Paquette, Jacynthe Roberge, Beate Sander, Aaron M Scherer, Martin Tremblay-Breault, Kumanan Wilson, Daniel Reinharz, Holly O Witteman. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 30.10.2020.)

Vaccine hesitancy-the reluctance to receive recommended vaccination because of concerns and doubts about vaccines-is recognized as a significant threat to the success of vaccination programs and has been associated with recent major outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Moreover, the association between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal has been frequently reported in the literature. To date, significant gaps persist in our understanding of contemporary Canadian CAM providers' beliefs regarding vaccination and how socio-professional influences may shape their vaccine-related attitudes and behaviours. To address the latter gap, the current study aims to explore the content of professional guidelines, recommendations and other discourses among CAM providers as they concern vaccination by analyzing both academic, peer-reviewed literature and Canadian organizational webpages prepared by and/or for practicing chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths. In the academic literature, we identified a number of complex and diverging views on vaccination that spanned topics of effectiveness; safety; theoretical, empirical, and ethical soundness; political justifiability; and compatibility with CAM philosophy and professional boundaries. However, in its current state the CAM literature cannot be described in broad strokes as being either pro- or anti-vaccination without considering finer areas of disagreement. Compared to the academic literature, which focuses more on the conceptual and evidentiary basis of vaccination, a greater proportion of vaccine-related content on Canadian CAM organizations' webpages seems to be dedicated to offering specific directives and prescriptions to providers. Guidelines and standards of practice address a number of issues, including vaccine administration, counsel, education and marketing. As CAM organizations further evolve in Canada and elsewhere as part of a broader "professionalization" initiative, greater attention will need to be directed at their role in shaping providers' beliefs and practices that both support and undermine vaccine promotion efforts., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: Influenza vaccine uptake among Canadian pregnant individuals is suboptimal. Failure to incorporate vaccination into routine prenatal care and a lack of recommendations from healthcare providers are recognized as barriers to vaccination. The aim of this study was to assess Canadian maternity care providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding influenza vaccination in pregnancy., Methods: A cross-sectional Web-based questionnaire was sent during July and August 2017 to family physicians, obstetricians-gynaecologists, midwives, pharmacists, and nurses who care for pregnant individuals. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine variables independently associated with providers' recommendation of the influenza vaccine in pregnancy., Results: The analysis included 1061 providers. Most participants (85%) reported being vaccinated against influenza themselves, and 72% reported recommending the influenza vaccine to all of their pregnant patients during the previous influenza season. Participants' attitudes regarding influenza vaccination during pregnancy were generally positive: 64% strongly agreed that pregnant individuals are at an increased risk of complications from influenza, and 69% strongly agreed that it is safe to vaccinate pregnant individuals against influenza. The main determinants of participants' recommendations for influenza vaccination to all pregnant patients were following official recommendations on influenza vaccination, discussing vaccines with most or all pregnant individuals seen in their practice, and being vaccinated themselves during the previous influenza season., Conclusion: Enhancing influenza vaccine uptake in pregnancy is largely dependent on maternity care providers' recommendations. This study provides valuable insight on providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

"Vaccine hesitancy" is a concept now frequently used in vaccination discourse. The increased popularity of this concept in both academic and public health circles is challenging previously held perspectives that individual vaccination attitudes and behaviours are a simple dichotomy of accept or reject. A consultation study was designed to assess the opinions of experts and health professionals concerning the definition, scope, and causes of vaccine hesitancy in Canada. We sent online surveys to two panels (1- vaccination experts and 2- front-line vaccine providers). Two questionnaires were completed by each panel, with data from the first questionnaire informing the development of questions for the second. Our participants defined vaccine hesitancy as an attitude (doubts, concerns) as well as a behaviour (refusing some / many vaccines, delaying vaccination). Our findings also indicate that both vaccine experts and front-line vaccine providers have the perception that vaccine rates have been declining and consider vaccine hesitancy an important issue to address in Canada. Diffusion of negative information online and lack of knowledge about vaccines were identified as the key causes of vaccine hesitancy by the participants. A common understanding of vaccine hesitancy among researchers, public health experts, policymakers and health care providers will better guide interventions that can more effectively address vaccine hesitancy within Canada.

We examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID‐19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID‐19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine‐safety test subjects before population‐wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non‐prioritization of the Métis during COVID‐19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign—though understandable—interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccination coverage needs to reach more than 80% to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy, fuelled by misinformation, may jeopardize this goal. Unvaccinated older adults are not only at risk of COVID-19 complications but may also be misled by false information. Prebunking, based on inoculation theory, involves 'forewarning people [of] and refuting information that challenges their existing belief or behavior'. To assess the effectiveness of inoculation communication strategies in countering disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines among Canadians aged 50 years and older, as measured by their COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Applying an online experiment with a mixed pre–post design and a sample size of 2500 participants, we conducted a national randomized survey among English and French-speaking Canadians aged 50 years and older in March 2021. Responses to two different disinformation messages were evaluated. Our primary outcome was the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, with attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine a secondary outcome. The McNemar test and multivariate logistic regression analysis on paired data were conducted when the outcome was dichotomized. Wilcoxon sign rank test and Kruskal–Wallis were used to test difference scores between pre- and post-tests by condition. Group comparisons between those who received only disinformation and those who received the inoculation message show that prebunking messages may safeguard intention to get vaccinated and have a protective effect against disinformation. Prebunking messages should be considered as one strategy for public health communication to combat misinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an explosion in the amount of information shared on the internet, including false and misleading information on SARS-CoV-2 and recommended protective behaviors. Prior to the pandemic, web-based misinformation and disinformation were already identified as having an impact on people's decision to refuse or delay recommended vaccination for themselves or their children. Objective: The overall aims of our study are to better understand the influence of web-based misinformation and disinformation on COVID-19 vaccine decisions and investigate potential solutions to reduce the impact of web-based misinformation and disinformation about vaccines. Methods: Based on different research approaches, the study will involve (1) the use of artificial intelligence techniques, (2) a web-based survey, (3) interviews, and (4) a scoping review and an environmental scan of the literature. Results: As of September 1, 2022, data collection has been completed for all objectives. The analysis is being conducted, and results should be disseminated in the upcoming months. Conclusions: The findings from this study will help with understanding the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy among Canadian individuals and identifying effective, tailored interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the first wave of the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, Aboriginal populations in Canada experienced disproportionate rates of infection, particularly in the province of Manitoba. To protect those thought to be most at-risk, health authorities in Manitoba listed all Aboriginal people, including Metis, among those able to receive priority access to the novel vaccine when it first became available. Currently, no studies exist that have investigated the attitudes, influences, and vaccine behaviors among Aboriginal communities in Canada. This paper is the first to systematically connect vaccine behavior with the attitudes and beliefs that influenced Metis study participants' H1N1 vaccine decision-making. Methods: Researchers held focus groups (n = 17) with Metis participants in urban, rural, and remote locations of Manitoba following the conclusion of the H1N1 pandemic. Participants were asked about their vaccination decisions and about the factors that influenced their decisions. Following data collection, responses were coded into the broad categories of a social-ecological model, nuanced by categories stemming from earlier research. Responses were then quantified to show the most influential factors in positively or negatively affecting the vaccine decision. Results: Media reporting, the influence of peer groups, and prioritization all had positive and negative influential effects on decision making. Whether vaccinated or not, the most negatively influential factors cited by participants were a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and the pandemic as well as concerns about vaccine safety. Risk of contracting H1N1 influenza was the biggest factor in positively influencing a vaccine decision, which in many cases trumped any co-existing negative influencers. Conclusions: Metis experiences of colonialism in Canada deeply affected their perceptions of the vaccine and pandemic, a context that health systems need to take into account when planning response activities in the future. Participants felt under-informed about most aspects of the vaccine and the pandemic, and many vaccine related misconceptions and fears existed. Recommendations include leveraging doctor-patient interactions as a site for sharing vaccine-related knowledge, as well as targeted, culturally-appropriate, and empowering public information strategies to supply reliable vaccine and pandemic information to potentially at-risk Aboriginal populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developing appropriate risk messages during challenging situations like public health outbreaks is complicated. The focus of this paper is on how First Nations and Metis people in Manitoba, Canada, responded to the public health management of pandemic H1N1, using a focus group methodology (n = 23 focus groups). Focus group conversations explored participant reactions to messaging regarding the identification of H1N1 virus risk groups, the H1N1 vaccine and how priority groups to receive the vaccine were established. To better contextualize the intentions of public health professionals, key informant interviews (n = 20) were conducted with different health decision makers (e.g., public health officials, people responsible for communications, representatives from some First Nations and Metis self-governing organizations). While risk communication practice has improved, ‘one size’ messaging campaigns do not work effectively, particularly when communicating about who is most ‘at-risk’. Public health agencies need to pay more attention to the specific socio-economic, historical and cultural contexts of First Nations and Metis citizens when planning for, communicating and managing responses associated with pandemic outbreaks to better tailor both the messages and delivery. More attention is needed to directly engage First Nations and Metis communities in the development and dissemination of risk messaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Canada, the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted many routine health services, placed additional strain on the health care system, and resulted in many Canadians being either unable or unwilling to attend routine immunization appointments. We sought to capture and synthesize information about changes to routine immunization programs in response to the pandemic and plans to catch-up any missed immunizations. Provincial/territorial (P/T) public health leaders were interviewed via teleconference between August-October 2020 to collect information on the following topics: how routine immunization delivery was affected during and after initial lockdown periods, plans to catch-up missed doses, and major challenges and achievements in continuing routine immunization programs. Data were coded and categorized according to common responses and descriptive analysis was performed. Interviews occurred with participants from 11 of 13 P/Ts. School immunization programs were reported to be most negatively affected by the pandemic (n = 9). In the early pandemic period, infant, preschool, and maternal/prenatal programs were prioritized, with most P/Ts continuing these services with adaptations for COVID-19. After the initial lockdown period, all routine programs were continuing with adaptations in most P/Ts. Infant, preschool, and school programs were most often targeted for catch-up through measures such as appointment rebooking and making additional clinics and/or providers available. Major challenges included resource limitations (e.g., staff shortages, PPE shortages, limited infrastructure) (n = 11), public health restrictions (n = 8), and public hesitancy to attend appointments (n = 5). Canadian routine immunization programs faced some disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the school, adult, and older adult programs. Further research is needed to determine the measurable impact of the pandemic on routine vaccine coverage levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Naturopaths encouraged clients to make informed decisions about vaccination. • Naturopaths conduct personalized and individualized vaccination conversations with their clients. • Many Quebec naturopaths held negative attitudes toward vaccination. Health care providers' recommendations can play an important role in individuals' vaccination decisions. Despite being one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), naturopathy is understudied in relation to vaccination decisions. We sought to address this gap through this study of vaccination perspectives of naturopathy practitioners in the province of Quebec, Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 naturopaths. Thematic analysis was conducted. Main themes were developed deductively (i.e., based on prior literature) and expanded through inductive coding of the data. Participants noted that they discuss vaccination in their practice, but only when clients asked questions or wanted advice. Naturopaths described refraining from explicitly recommending for or against vaccination. Instead, they focus on empowering their clients to make their own informed decision regarding vaccination. Most participants noted that they direct clients towards sources of information so that clients could decide for themselves, but some mentioned they discussed with clients what they considered to be risks associated with vaccination, as well as its benefits. These discussions were framed through a personalized and individual approach with clients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccinating children (≤17 years old) is important for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. As parents are primary decision makers for their children, we aimed to assess parents' perceptions and intentions regarding COVID-19 vaccination for their children, including for some underserved populations (e.g., newcomers, Indigenous peoples, and visible minority groups). We conducted a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian parents in December 2020, just as COVID-19 vaccines were approved for adults, to assess intention to vaccinate their children (aged 0–17 years) against COVID-19, perceptions of COVID-19 disease and vaccines, previous uptake of influenza and routine vaccines, and sociodemographic characteristics. Binomial logistic regression was used to assess the association between parents' lack of COVID-19 vaccination intention for their children and various independent variables. Sixty-three percent of parents (1074/1702) intended to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. Those employed part-time (compared to full-time) had lower intention to vaccinate their children (aOR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.06–2.84), while those who spoke languages other than English, French, or Indigenous languages were less likely to have low intention (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32–0.92). Low vaccination intention was also associated with children not receiving influenza vaccine pre-pandemic (aOR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.04–2.21), parents having low intention to vaccinate themselves against COVID-19 (aOR = 9.22, 95% CI: 6.43–13.34), believing COVID-19 vaccination is unnecessary (aOR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.72–3.91) or unsafe (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI: 2.96–5.99), and opposing COVID-19 vaccine use in children without prior testing (aOR = 3.09, 95% CI: 1.87–5.24). Parents' COVID-19 vaccination intentions for their children are better predicted by previous decisions regarding influenza vaccination than routine childhood vaccines, and other perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine-related factors. Public communication should highlight the safety and necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in children to support a return to normal activities. Further research should assess actual COVID-19 vaccination uptake in children, particularly for underserved populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Little evidence is available about the effects of communicating about community immunity. • Effective communication about community immunity may increase vaccine intentions. • Future research should focus on how to communicate this concept effectively. Abstract Background Herd immunity, or community immunity, occurs when susceptible people in a population are indirectly protected from infection thanks to the pervasiveness of immunity within the population. In this study, we aimed to systematically review interventions designed to communicate what community immunity is and how community immunity works to members of the general public. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles describing interventions with or without evaluations. We then conducted web searches with Google to identify interventions lacking associated publications. We extracted data about the target population of the interventions, the interventions themselves (e.g., did they describe what community immunity is, and how it works), any effects of evaluated interventions, and synthesized data narratively. Results We identified 32 interventions: 11 interventions described in peer-reviewed articles and 21 interventions without associated articles. Of the 32 interventions, 5 described what community immunity is, 6 described the mechanisms of how community immunity occurs and 21 described both. Fourteen of the 32 addressed infectious diseases in general while the other 13 addressed one or more specific diseases. Twelve of the 32 interventions used videos, 7 used interactive simulations and 6 used questionnaires. Ten of the 11 peer-reviewed articles described studies evaluating at least one effect of the interventions. Within these 10, 4/4 reported increased knowledge, 3/5 reported shifts of attitudes in favour of vaccination, 2/5 reported increased intentions to vaccinate. Of 3 studies evaluating interventions specifically about community immunity, 2 reported increased intentions to vaccinate. Conclusions A compelling benefit of vaccination exists at the population level in the form of community immunity. Identifying ways to optimally communicate about this benefit may be important, because some evidence suggests that effective communication about community immunity can increase vaccination intentions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]