Search

Abstract Background Adolescents with disability have lower vaccination rates than the general population, including HPV vaccination. Understanding the multi-level influences on vaccination in specialist schools is crucial to achieve optimal vaccination coverage and vaccination experiences for adolescents living with disability. Objective To identify and improve understanding of the facilitators and barriers of HPV vaccination among adolescents with intellectual disabilities or autism in Victorian specialist schools to inform strategies to increase vaccination acceptance and uptake. Methods Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (adolescents with disabilities, parents, school and council immunisation staff) from six specialist schools in Victoria, Australia. Data were analysed thematically. Inductively derived themes were then deductively mapped across the UNICEF ‘Journey to Immunization’ model. Results 32 interviews were conducted with stakeholders (2 adolescents, 7 parents, 13 school staff, 10 council staff). Trust in vaccines was high, but knowledge of the HPV vaccine was limited. Barriers included lack of accessible information for parents, the consent process, behavioural challenges and vaccine-related anxiety among students. The immunisation program in special schools was perceived as convenient, however preparing students for vaccination day and catering to individual student needs were key. Participants expressed a need for more parent information about options and additional support for vaccination outside of the school program. Conclusions Our study identified a range of facilitators and barriers to the school immunisation program for students with disabilities in specialist schools. The next phase of this work will use co-design workshops to build on the suggestions for improvement and opportunities that could be leveraged to improve vaccination uptake.

Data on routine childhood vaccination coverage can only tell us who is under-vaccinated; it cannot explain why vaccine coverage is low. Collecting data on the reasons behind under-vaccination is necessary to implement cost-effective strategies that address key barriers and target interventions appropriately. However, no instruments that measure both vaccine acceptance and access factors among parents of children

Background: An asymptomatic COVID-19 rapid antigen testing (RAT) screening program was implemented in Victorian schools in January 2022, to support keeping schools open throughout the pandemic. This study explored compliance with the program among caregivers from priority populations in Victorian mainstream and specialist schools. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews between 7–31 March 2022 with caregivers of school-aged children participating in the RAT program in Victoria. Participants were asked about awareness, acceptability, compliance, frequency, and barriers to testing. Recordings were transcribed and deductively analysed using a framework approach. Results: Fifty caregivers participated. They expressed confusion about the ‘recommended’ program, assuming it was mandatory. Caregivers wanted notification from schools of positive cases to increase motivation for compliance. Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) families were compliant; however, in-language resources were limited. Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Koori) families tested less regularly and received information from their community rather than school. Caregivers of children living with disabilities reported behavioural challenges to testing, resulting in distress or non-compliance, and received non-specific information for their children. Conclusions: To increase engagement with future surveillance programs, caregivers need clarity about optionality, conducting tests, reporting results, and timely notification of cases. Requirements unique to each priority population include: accurate in-language information for CALD caregivers, community-led communication for Koori caregivers, tailored information, less testing, and flexibility for caregivers of children living with a disability. Keeping schools open and having tailored strategies to ensure equitable access for priority populations are essential for future pandemic management.

Abstract Background Community health workers (CHWs) had important roles mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in vulnerable communities. We described how CHWs supported the dissemination of COVID-19 information and services during the early pandemic response. Methods Online article searches were conducted across five scientific databases, with review article reference lists hand searched to identify grey/unpublished literature. Articles were included if they reported on a program that engaged CHWs and aimed to prevent/control COVID-19. Results Nineteen relevant programs were identified from 18 included articles. CHWs were widely engaged in the pandemic response, especially in low- and middle-income countries and in vulnerable communities. CHWs’ ability to effectively disseminate COVID-19 information/services was enabled by community trust and understanding community needs. CHWs were often underfunded and required to work in difficult conditions. Pre-existing services incorporating CHWs rapidly adapted to the new challenges brought by the pandemic. Conclusions We recommend establishing programs that employ CHWs to disseminate health information and services in communities at-risk of misinformation and poor health outcomes during non-pandemic times. CHWs are well-placed to deliver interventions should an infectious disease outbreak arise. Having pre-existing trusted relationships between CHWs and community members may help protect vulnerable groups, including when outbreaks occur.

Introduction Increasing trust and confidence in vaccines is a global priority, as countries have grappled with delivering COVID-19 vaccines, maintaining routine childhood vaccination rates and introducing new vaccines. Community-based vaccine promotion interventions are commonly implemented, but effectiveness evidence is limited. In 2022, supported by the Australian Government and in partnership with Fiji’s Ministry of Health and UNICEF, we codesigned, delivered and comprehensively evaluated a vaccine education and communication training programme for health workers and community influencers to promote COVID-19 and routine immunisation.Methods The Vaccine Champions programme included three phases: (1) codesign with Fiji stakeholders; (2) vaccine education and communication training for Vaccine Champions and (3) support for Champions to deliver community vaccine discussion sessions over 6 months.The RE-AIM framework evaluation measured programme reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. Mixed-methods data were collected through interviews, surveys and field notes, integrating qualitative and quantitative data to triangulate findings. Primary outcomes included Champions’ knowledge, communication self-efficacy, trust in COVID-19 vaccines, programme satisfaction and community members’ intention to vaccinate.Results We trained 35 Champions (27/35 female), including health workers, faith and community influencers. Half had a health background (17/35). Champions conducted 54 discussion sessions, reaching 1717 community members. Most Champions (22/35) conducted at least 1 session, with 16 running 3 or more. Champions who did not run sessions reported barriers like lack of confidence and competing duties. Training increased Champions’ communication self-efficacy and trust in COVID-19 vaccines. Community member intention to vaccinate increased from 41% (394/960) to 83% (822/991) before and after a session. The programme was well received with interest in continued engagement.Conclusion Training health workers and community Vaccine Champions can promote vaccine confidence. Programmes require government support and engagement for sustainability. Robust evaluation frameworks are needed to build the evidence base.

Abstract Background The cohealth Health Concierge program operated in Melbourne, Australia from July 2020 to 30 June 2022. It provided peer-to-peer support to culturally and linguistically diverse residents of high-rise public housing. During this time, the COVID-19 public health response changed frequently and included movement restriction, testing and vaccination. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to determine the Health Concierge program’s impact on residents’ engagement with health services and public health activities. Methods The evaluation, informed by a Project Reference Group, used the RE-AIM framework. We analysed data from 20,901 routinely collected forms describing interactions between Concierges and residents from August 2021 to May 2022. Additional evaluation-specific data were collected between March and May 2022 in four housing estates; we surveyed 301 residents and conducted 32 interviews with residents, Concierges and program stakeholders. Results Concierges promoted COVID-safe behaviours; linked residents with support, testing and vaccination services; and disseminated up-to-date information. Of the 20,901 recorded interactions, 8,872 (42%) included Concierges providing support around COVID-19 vaccination. Most surveyed residents (191/301, 63%) reported speaking with a Concierge in the previous six months. The self-reported two-dose COVID-19 vaccine uptake was 94% (283/301). Some residents described having meaningful, appreciated conversations with Concierges, and some described superficial interactions. While residents initially welcomed the program, many felt it failed to evolve. Poorly defined management and hiring criteria led to variable program implementation. A need for bicultural workers to continue linking residents with services was discussed. Conclusions Concierges’ impact on residents may have contributed to high community uptake of COVID-19 testing and vaccination, and had benefits beyond the COVID-19 remit. We recommend the program be revised and continued to inform further preparedness planning and support service access generally. Program models such as this have potential to inform and reassure high-risk communities during a pandemic. In addition, such programs can help overcome vaccine hesitancy and promote protective health behaviours, regardless of whether a pandemic is currently occurring. Ensuring these programs remain responsive to the changing needs of end-users needs over time is imperative.

Introduction Longitudinal studies can provide timely and accurate information to evaluate and inform COVID-19 control and mitigation strategies and future pandemic preparedness. The Optimise Study is a multidisciplinary research platform established in the Australian state of Victoria in September 2020 to collect epidemiological, social, psychological and behavioural data from priority populations. It aims to understand changing public attitudes, behaviours and experiences of COVID-19 and inform epidemic modelling and support responsive government policy.Methods and analysis This protocol paper describes the data collection procedures for the Optimise Study, an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ~1000 Victorian adults and their social networks. Participants are recruited using snowball sampling with a set of seeds and two waves of snowball recruitment. Seeds are purposively selected from priority groups, including recent COVID-19 cases and close contacts and people at heightened risk of infection and/or adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection and/or public health measures. Participants complete a schedule of monthly quantitative surveys and daily diaries for up to 24 months, plus additional surveys annually for up to 48 months. Cohort participants are recruited for qualitative interviews at key time points to enable in-depth exploration of people’s lived experiences. Separately, community representatives are invited to participate in community engagement groups, which review and interpret research findings to inform policy and practice recommendations.Ethics and dissemination The Optimise longitudinal cohort and qualitative interviews are approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (# 333/20). The Optimise Study CEG is approved by the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (# HEC20532). All participants provide informed verbal consent to enter the cohort, with additional consent provided prior to any of the sub studies. Study findings will be disseminated through public website (https://optimisecovid.com.au/study-findings/) and through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration number NCT05323799.

Background Understanding of the behavioural and social drivers (BeSD) of vaccination is key to addressing vaccine hesitancy and accessibility issues. Vietnam’s national COVID-19 vaccination programme resulted in high uptake of primary doses among adults, but lower booster doses for adults and primary doses for 5–11 years. This scoping review assessed BeSD influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Vietnam to design interventions on reaching the national vaccination targets.Method We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, MedRxiv, LitCOVID, COVID-19 LOVE platform, WHO’s COVID-19 research database and seven dominant Vietnamese language medical journals published in English or Vietnamese between 28 December 2019 and 28 November 2022. Data were narratively synthesised and summarised according to the four components of the WHO BeSD framework. The drivers were then mapped along the timeline of COVID-19 vaccine deployment and the evolution of the pandemic in Vietnam.Results We identified 680 records, of which 39 met the inclusion criteria comprising 224 204 participants. Adults’ intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines for themselves (23 studies) ranged from 58.0% to 98.1%. Parental intention to vaccinate their under 11-year-old children (six studies) ranged from 32.8% to 79.6%. Key drivers of vaccination uptake were perceived susceptibility and severity of disease, perceived vaccine benefits and safety, healthcare worker recommendation, and positive societal perception. Commonly reported COVID-19 vaccines’ information sources (six studies) were social and mainstream media (82%–67%), television (72.7%–51.6%) and healthcare workers (47.5%–17.5%). Key drivers of COVID-19 uptake remained consistent for both adults and children despite changes in community transmission and vaccine deployment.Conclusion Key enablers of vaccine uptake for adults and children included perceived disease severity, perceived vaccine benefits and safety and healthcare worker recommendations. Future studies should assess vaccine communication targeted to these drivers, national policies and political determinants to optimise vaccine uptake.

Global measles cases are on the rise following disruptions to routine immunisation programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with devastating consequences. According to the World Health Organization, the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination include what people think and feel about vaccines, social processes, motivation to vaccinate and practical barriers to vaccination. However, the drivers of measles vaccine uptake are not necessarily the same as those for other childhood vaccines, and we lack data on how these drivers specifically have changed during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. Without accurately measuring the behavioural and social drivers for measles vaccination, and ideally measuring them serially over time, countries cannot design, target and implement interventions that effectively increase and sustain measles vaccine coverage. This paper outlines what is and is not known about the behavioural and social drivers of measles vaccination and provides recommendations for improving their post-pandemic assessment.

Introduction Vaccine coverage remains inequitable globally. Many systematic reviews have looked at the effectiveness of strategies to improve vaccine uptake; however, these reviews frequently lack data from low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where evidence of cost-effective strategies is most valuable. This is partly because reviews often exclude non-randomised, observational or unpublished evaluations that are common in LMICs. Many reviews also exclude multicomponent interventions due to challenges isolating the effect of each component. A comprehensive mapping of multicomponent interventions implemented in LMICs would increase the visibility of studies excluded from systematic reviews and improve comparability of future evaluations by providing guidance for researchers on evaluation frameworks. This scoping review aims to identify, compare and summarise the properties and evaluation methods of multicomponent interventions to improve uptake of routine childhood vaccines in LMICs, and to assess the strengths and limitations of evaluation frameworks applied.Methods and analysis This review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Eldis and Global Health (CAB Direct), Global Index Medicus, 3ie Portal, Google Scholar, COnnecting REpositories, and reference lists. One author will screen titles and abstracts and extract data from included articles using a pretested data extraction template. Uncertainties will be resolved through discussion with another author. Only studies published in English will be included for full review. We will assess the practicability, applicability, sensitivity and specificity of the evaluation frameworks used and present results using descriptive statistics, summary tables and charts.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required. The review will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Study registration https://osf.io/7r84g.

Abstract Objective: Tailored communication is necessary to address COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake. We aimed to understand the information needs, perceived benefits and barriers to COVID‐19 vaccination of people prioritised, but hesitant to receive the vaccine. Method: In this qualitative study in Victoria, Australia (February‐May 2021), we purposively sampled hesitant adults who were health or aged/disability care workers (n=20), or adults aged 18‐69 with comorbidities or aged ≥70 years (‘prioritised adults’; n=19). We thematically analysed interviews inductively, then deductively organised themes within the World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of vaccination model. Two stakeholder workshops (n=12) explored understanding and preferences for communicating risks and benefits. We subsequently formed communication recommendations. Results: Prioritised adults and health and aged care workers had short‐ and long‐term safety concerns specific to personal circumstances, and felt like “guinea pigs”. They saw vaccination as beneficial for individual and community protection and travel. Some health and aged care workers felt insufficiently informed to recommend vaccines, or viewed this as outside their scope of practice. Workshop participants requested interactive materials and transparency from spokespeople about uncertainty. Conclusions and public health implications: Eleven recommendations address communication content, delivery and context to increase uptake and acceptance of COVID‐19 vaccines.

COVID-19 and associated public health policies have significantly disrupted the lives of both adults and children. Experiences of COVID-positive adults are well described but less is known about the experiences of families of children who receive a positive diagnosis, and the impact of public health policies on this experience. This study aimed to develop a framework to understand the lived experience of families with a child testing positive for COVID-19. We applied a qualitative study design, using grounded theory. The study took place in Melbourne, Australia between July and December 2020, during the first major Australian COVID-19 wave. Parents of children 0–18 years tested at a walk-in clinic at a paediatric tertiary referral hospital were invited to participate. Two interviewers jointly undertook in-depth interviews with parents of children who tested positive. Interviews were transcribed and two analysts used an inductive, critical realist analysis approach with NVivo and a virtual whiteboard. Results are presented incorporating a stratified reality (empirical, actual, real). Families described seven sequential stages of the COVID-19 positive testing journey: COVID-19 close to home; time to be tested; waiting for the test result; receiving the result; dealing with the diagnosis; coping with isolation; and moving forward/looking back. Our findings highlight how public health policies and messages targeting the general (adult) public were experienced by families. We provide a framework that families move through when their child tests positive for COVID-19. Within each phase, we report unmet needs and identify strategies to improve future pandemic planning for parents and children.

Introduction Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine booster coverage is an ongoing global challenge. Health authorities need evidence about effective communication interventions to improve acceptance and uptake. This study aimed to test effects of persuasive messages about COVID-19 vaccine booster doses on intention to vaccinate amongst eligible adults in Australia. Methods In this online randomised controlled trial, adult participants received one of four intervention messages or a control message. The control message provided information about booster dose eligibility. Intervention messages added to the control message, each using a different persuasive strategy, including: emphasising personal health benefits of booster doses, community health benefits, non-health benefits, and personal agency in choosing vaccination. After the intervention, participants answered items about COVID-19 booster vaccine intention and beliefs. Intervention groups were compared to the control using tests of two proportions; differences of ≥5 percentage points were deemed clinically significant. A sub-group analysis was conducted among hesitant participants. Results Of the 487 consenting and randomised participants, 442 (90.8%) completed the experiment and were included in the analysis. Participants viewing messages emphasising non-health benefits had the highest intention compared to those who viewed the control message (percentage point diff: 9.0, 95% CI -0.8, 18.8, p = 0.071). Intention was even higher among hesitant individuals in this intervention group compared to the control group (percentage point diff: 15.6, 95% CI -6.0, 37.3, p = 0.150). Conversely, intention was lower among hesitant individuals who viewed messages emphasising personal agency compared to the control group (percentage point diff: -10.8, 95% CI -33.0, 11.4, p = 0.330), although evidence in support of these findings is weak. Conclusion Health authorities should highlight non-health benefits to encourage COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake but use messages emphasising personal agency with caution. These findings can inform communication message development and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake. Clinical trial registration: Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622001404718); trial webpage: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12622001404718.aspx

Autistic children, adolescents and their younger siblings are less likely to be fully vaccinated compared to their peers in the general population. A focus on the influence of the unfounded link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism has distracted from consideration of unique family experiences and autistic-child related factors, such as emotional and behavioural differences, that may influence caregivers’ vaccination decisions. Without an understanding of the unique challenges and experiences of families with autistic children along the vaccination journey, the scope for appropriate, targeted interventions to support them is limited. To address this gap, in this qualitative research study we explored factors that impact the vaccination journey for autistic children and their families in an Australian context. Participants included 16 caregivers (15 mothers; 1 father) of 25 children who had a diagnosis of autism. Seven families had multiple autistic children. Participants shared their perceptions, experiences, and anticipation related to childhood vaccinations and vaccinating their autistic child and their siblings. Conducting thematic analysis, we identified four themes, comprising eight subthemes. The primary themes were 1) caregiver upskilling and self-assurance, 2) acknowledging unique differences amongst autistic children, 3) trouble behind and trouble ahead, and 4) managing sensory overload. Through these themes, we describe the unique needs of autistic children and their families with regard to emotional and sensory aspects of the vaccination visit across settings. We conclude by making recommendations for adaptation of vaccination services to incorporate the autistic perspective and lived experiences of families of autistic children.

Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout included prioritizing older adults and those with underlying conditions. However, little was known around the factors impacting their decision to accept the vaccine. This study aimed to assess vaccine intentions, information needs, and preferences of people prioritized to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the start of the Australian vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional online survey of people aged ≥70 years or 18–69 with chronic or underlying conditions was conducted between 12 February and 26 March 2021 in Victoria, Australia. The World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of COVID-19 vaccination framework and items informed the survey design and framing of results. Bivariate logistic regression was used to investigate the association between intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and demographic characteristics. In total, 1828 eligible people completed the survey. Intention to vaccinate was highest among those ≥70 years (89.6%, n = 824/920) versus those aged 18–69 years (83.8%, n = 761/908), with 91% (n = 1641/1803) of respondents agreeing that getting a COVID-19 vaccine was important to their health. Reported vaccine safety (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) and efficacy (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.3) were associated with intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Concerns around serious illness, long-term effects, and insufficient vaccine testing were factors for not accepting a COVID-19 vaccine. Preferred communication methods included discussion with healthcare providers, with primary care providers identified as the most trusted information source. This study identified factors influencing the prioritized public’s COVID-19 vaccine decision-making, including information preferences. These details can support future vaccination rollouts.

Abstract Background Effective implementation requires a comprehensive understanding of individual, organisational and system determinants. This study aimed to compare inductive and deductive analysis techniques to understand a complex implementation issue. We used childhood vaccination as a case study, an issue with wide-ranging barriers contributing to low-vaccine uptake internationally. Methods The study is based on the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, which was derived from several levels of theory: the 3 components of the COM-B framework (capability, opportunity and motivation) can be mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which is based on 84 underlying constructs. We first conducted a review of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination. Subsequently we (1) inductively coded these barriers into a data-driven framework, using thematic analysis, and (2) deductively mapped the barriers to COM-B and TDF domains and constructs. These processes were undertaken by two authors independently, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Inductive and deductive results were compared. Results The inductive process coded 583 descriptions of barriers identified from the literature into a framework of 74 barriers in 7 categories. The initial definitions used to map the barriers to deductive domains/constructs led to 89% agreement at the domain level. Resolving discrepancies required further definitions at the construct level. Of the 14 TDF domains, 10 were clearly identified in the data from the barrier reviews. Some domains were not specific enough to differentiate between types of barriers (e.g. Environmental Context and Resources), while other domains were not represented in the review data (e.g. Behavioural Regulation). Conclusions Using both inductive and deductive analysis techniques can help achieve a more comprehensive understanding of barriers to health service implementation. The inductive categories represented the review data in a clearer way than the theoretical domains, with better differentiation; but the missing deductive domains were useful as a way to identify additional issues to investigate further. Both analysis techniques resulted in a comprehensive list of barriers to vaccination that would not have been achieved using either approach alone. We recommend a hybrid approach combining TDF with broader frameworks, for future researchers conducting evidence syntheses.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among 5–11-year-olds is significantly lower than that of the 12+ age group. Some parents may have decided against vaccinating their children for COVID-19; others may be undecided and may be seeking more information to support their decision. We aimed to assess the effect of a decision support tool on parents’ level of decisional conflict, vaccine hesitancy, and intention to vaccinate. We conducted a single-arm, cross-sectional online pre-post intervention survey of parents from Victoria, Australia, who had not yet vaccinated their 5–11-year-old child for COVID-19. We measured change in decisional conflict, intention, and hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines for children before and after viewing a decision support tool. We used logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with reduced decisional conflict. Between May and September 2022, 108 parents took part in the study. The tool reduced decision conflict in 25% (27/107) of parents, with reduced decisional conflict more likely among parents initially undecided about vaccinating, compared to parents who did not intend to vaccinate their child (OR, 12.58 95% CI 3.21 to 9.30). For most parents, hesitancy (83%, 90/108) and intention (89%, 96/108) remained the same. The decision support tool was modestly effective at reducing decisional conflict, particularly among undecided parents.

Rather than concentrating primarily on children and adolescents, there has been a shift in the discourse around immunisation to encompass a whole-of-life approach. Despite this acknowledgement and ongoing high burdens of vaccine preventable diseases in adults, coverage for some adult risk groups remains sub-optimal. This study aimed to explore key informant's and stakeholder's perceptions of factors impacting provision of immunisation programs for Australian adults and to identify strategies to promote acceptance and uptake. Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with people involved in adult immunisation program delivery, advocacy, policy or research between September 2020 and June 2021. Transcripts were inductively analysed, with the resulting themes categorised into the five influences on vaccination gaps that have informed program planning in other countries: Access, Affordability, Awareness, Acceptance and Activation. Participants spoke of improvements in the provision of vaccines to adults, however, ongoing challenges persisted. Participants agreed that the focus or emphasis of policies and the promotion/communication strategies has been on childhood vaccination in Australia, however there is a sense that the “pendulum has swung.” These included understanding of eligibility amongst the Australian population and the reluctance of some health providers to dedicate time to exploring immunisation needs with adult patients. In comparison to the childhood vaccination program, there has been a lack of data available on coverage for adult vaccines on the national immunisation program. This has contributed to the ongoing challenges of identifying and promoting certain vaccines. At a government level, questions were raised about why the Australian government has never set an aspirational target for adult vaccination (i.e., influenza or pneumococcal) coverage. While significant improvements have been made in adult immunisation uptake, there are still gaps across the program. While the system remains under stress because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not appropriate to implement any additional programs. There needs to be strong commitment to establish the value of adult vaccination in the eyes of community members, policy makers and healthcare professionals. Having a national adult immunisation strategic plan would help advance action.

Presumptive and Motivational Interviewing communication styles have successfully promoted childhood and adolescent vaccination to parents, but less is known about effective communication approaches during pregnancy to promote maternal vaccination and childhood vaccines. In Australian public antenatal settings, midwives provide a substantial proportion of care and are highly accessed and trusted sources of vaccine information for expectant parents. However, there are no evidence-based interventions incorporating communication strategies and resources for midwives to optimize discussions and promote acceptance of maternal and childhood vaccines. This study aimed to gather qualitative data from midwives to inform the design of a feasible and acceptable vaccine communication intervention package building on an evidence-based model utilized with US obstetricians. We explored midwives’ attitudes and values regarding maternal and childhood vaccination, their perceived role in vaccine advocacy and delivery, and barriers and enablers to implementation of a potential communication intervention. We recruited 12 midwives for semi-structured interviews at two Australian tertiary public hospitals (one with antenatal vaccines onsite, one without). Interviews were analyzed using thematic template analysis. Midwives supported vaccination but expressed varied views regarding its centrality to their role. Most reported receiving minimal or no training on vaccine communication. Their communication practices focused primarily on vaccine information provision rather than persuasion, although some midwives shared personal views and actively encouraged vaccination. More vaccine and communication training and resources were requested. Findings highlight the need for communication tools that align with midwifery standards for practice to support midwives to address parents’ questions and concerns about maternal and childhood vaccines.

Strong community engagement has been critical to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Australia and elsewhere. Community engagement builds trust, enables tailored information dissemination and shapes social norms. Engagement is particularly important in communities with greater vaccine hesitancy, lower health literacy and mistrust in authorities. Early in 2021, as a team of vaccine social scientists and clinicians, we developed a program to train and empower community, faith, industry and healthcare leaders to advocate for COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccine champions”. We partnered with the Victorian Department of Health to deliver 91 online Vaccine Champions sessions from March 2021 to June 2022. Over 80 people who received this training were supported by the Department of Health to become formal vaccine champions, independently delivering over 100 locally tailored information sessions. Our survey evaluation of 20 sessions delivered in 2022 found most participants (94%, 118/125) felt more confident to discuss safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and find relevant information after attending a session. We also recorded >90% participant satisfaction with training content, format and presentation. Qualitative feedback from two group interviews highlighted the value of vaccine communication role plays and opportunities for discussion. In this brief report, we present an overview of the Vaccine Champions program, evaluation and next steps.

Introduction Understanding barriers to childhood vaccination is crucial to inform effective interventions for maximising uptake. Published systematic reviews include different primary studies, producing varying lists of barriers. To make sense of this diverse body of literature, a comprehensive level of summary and synthesis is necessary. This overview of systematic reviews maps all potential parent-level barriers to childhood vaccination identified in systematic reviews. It synthesises these into a conceptual framework to inform development of a vaccine barriers assessment tool.Methods We applied Joanna Briggs methodology, searching the Epistemonikos review database and reference lists of included reviews to June 2020. Systematic reviews of qualitative or quantitative data on parent-level barriers to routine vaccination in preschool-aged children were included. Reviews addressing influenza, reporting non-modifiable determinants or reporting barriers not relevant to parents were excluded. Where possible, we extracted review details, barrier descriptions and the number, setting and design of primary studies. Two authors independently screened search results and inductively coded barrier descriptions.Results We screened 464 papers, identifying 30 relevant reviews with minimal overlap. Fourteen reviews included qualitative and quantitative primary studies, seven included quantitative and seven included qualitative studies only. Two did not report included study designs. Two-thirds of reviews (n=20; 67%) only included primary studies from high-income countries. We extracted 573 barrier descriptions and inductively coded these into 64 unique barriers in six overarching categories: (1) Access, (2) Clinic or Health System Barriers, (3) Concerns and Beliefs, (4) Health Perceptions and Experiences, (5) Knowledge and Information and (6) Social or Family Influence.Conclusions A global overview of systematic reviews of parent-level barriers to childhood vaccine uptake identified 64 barriers to inform development of a new comprehensive survey instrument. This instrument will assess both access and acceptance barriers to more accurately diagnose the reasons for under-vaccination in children in different settings.

Background: High vaccine uptake requires strong public support, acceptance, and willingness. Methods: A longitudinal cohort study gathered survey data every four weeks between 1 October 2020 and 9 November 2021 in Victoria, Australia. Data were analysed for 686 participants aged 18 years and older. Results: Vaccine intention in our cohort increased from 60% in October 2020 to 99% in November 2021. Vaccine intention increased in all demographics, but longitudinal trends in vaccine intention differed by age, employment as a healthcare worker, presence of children in the household, and highest qualification attained. Acceptance of vaccine mandates increased from 50% in October 2020 to 71% in November 2021. Acceptance of vaccine mandates increased in all age groups except 18–25 years; acceptance also varied by gender and highest qualification attained. The main reasons for not intending to be vaccinated included safety concerns, including blood clots, and vaccine efficacy. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination campaigns should be informed by understanding of the sociodemographic drivers of vaccine acceptance to enable socially and culturally relevant guidance and ensure equitable vaccine coverage. Vaccination policies should be applied judiciously to avoid polarisation.

Healthcare workers’ COVID-19 vaccination coverage is important for staff and patient safety, workforce capacity and patient uptake. We aimed to identify COVID-19 vaccine intentions, factors associated with uptake and information needs for healthcare workers in Victoria, Australia. We administered a cross-sectional online survey to healthcare workers in hospitals, primary care and aged or disability care settings (12 February–26 March 2021). The World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers of COVID-19 vaccination framework informed survey design and framing of results. Binary regression results adjusted for demographics provide risk differences between those intending and not intending to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. In total, 3074 healthcare workers completed the survey. Primary care healthcare workers reported the highest intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (84%, 755/898), followed by hospital-based (77%, 1396/1811) and aged care workers (67%, 243/365). A higher proportion of aged care workers were concerned about passing COVID-19 to their patients compared to those working in primary care or hospitals. Only 25% felt they had sufficient information across five vaccine topics, but those with sufficient information had higher vaccine intentions. Approximately half thought vaccines should be mandated. Despite current high vaccine rates, our results remain relevant for booster programs and future vaccination rollouts.

Abstract Background Communication can be used to generate demand for vaccination or address vaccine hesitancy, and is crucial to successful childhood vaccination programmes. Research efforts have primarily focused on communication for routine vaccination. However, vaccination campaigns, particularly in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs), also use communication in diverse ways. Without a comprehensive framework integrating communication interventions from routine and campaign contexts, it is not possible to conceptualise the full range of possible vaccination communication interventions. Therefore, vaccine programme managers may be unaware of potential communication options and researchers may not focus on building evidence for interventions used in practice. In this paper, we broaden the scope of our existing taxonomy of communication interventions for routine vaccination to include communication used in campaigns, and integrate these into a comprehensive taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions. Methods Building on our taxonomy of communication for routine vaccination, we identified communication interventions used in vaccination campaigns through a targeted literature search; observation of vaccination activities in Cameroon, Mozambique and Nigeria; and stakeholder consultations. We added these interventions to descriptions of routine vaccination communication and categorised the interventions according to their intended purposes, building from an earlier taxonomy of communication related to routine vaccination. Results The comprehensive taxonomy groups communication used in campaigns and routine childhood vaccination into seven purpose categories: ‘Inform or Educate’; ‘Remind or Recall’; ‘Enhance Community Ownership’; ‘Teach Skills’; ‘Provide Support’; ‘Facilitate Decision Making’ and ‘Enable Communication’. Consultations with LMIC stakeholders and experts informed the taxonomy’s definitions and structure and established its potential uses. Conclusions This taxonomy provides a standardised way to think and speak about vaccination communication. It is categorised by purpose to help conceptualise communication interventions as potential solutions to address needs or problems. It can be utilised by programme planners, implementers, researchers and funders to see the range of communication interventions used in practice, facilitate evidence synthesis and identify evidence gaps.

Introduction As vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks increase, there is growing international interest in monitoring public attitudes towards vaccination and implementing and evaluating vaccine promotion interventions. Outcome selection and measurement are central to intervention evaluation. Measuring uptake rates alone cannot determine which elements in a multicomponent vaccine-promotion intervention are most effective, why specific populations are undervaccinated or when confidence in vaccines is wavering. To develop targeted and cost-effective interventions and policies, it is necessary to measure vaccination-related psychosocial factors such as knowledge, attitudes and aspects of decision-making. This scoping review aims to identify, compare and summarise the properties and validation of instruments for measuring vaccination-related psychosocial factors and identify gaps where no instruments exist.Methods and analysis We will search Medline OVID, Embase OVID, CINAHL and PsycINFO with no date restriction, using a pilot-tested search strategy of terms related to vaccination: knowledge, attitudes, trust, acceptance and decision-making and measurement, psychometric testing or validation. This search will be supplemented with manual search and expert consultation. We will include studies that describe instrument development, adaptation or testing and include evaluation of at least two measurement properties (eg, content, criterion, or construct validity; test–retest reliability; internal consistency; sensitivity; responsiveness). Instruments measuring a vaccination-related psychosocial factor in any population will be included. All studies will be screened by one reviewer, with a sample double-screened to confirm accuracy. Disagreements will be resolved with a third reviewer. Data will be synthesised narratively and through summary tables to chart and compare instrument characteristics such as factors measured, date and/or location of development or validation, measurement properties evaluated and population.Ethics and dissemination This scoping review aims to provide an overview of existing instruments and ascertain measurement gaps where no measurement instruments currently exist. The identified instruments will form the basis of an open-access online repository of instruments.

Abstract Background The role of health communication in vaccination programmes cannot be overemphasized: it has contributed significantly to creating and sustaining demand for vaccination services and improving vaccination coverage. In Nigeria, numerous communication approaches have been deployed but these interventions are not without challenges. We therefore aimed to explore factors affecting the delivery of vaccination communication in Nigeria. Methods We used a qualitative approach and conducted the study in two states: Bauchi and Cross River States in northern and southern Nigeria respectively. We identified factors affecting the implementation of communication interventions through interviews with relevant stakeholders involved in vaccination communication in the health services. We also reviewed relevant documents. Data generated were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results We used the SURE framework to organise the identified factors (barriers and facilitators) affecting vaccination communication delivery. We then grouped these into health systems and community level factors. Some of the commonly reported health system barriers amongst stakeholders interviewed included: funding constraints, human resource factors (health worker shortages, training deficiencies, poor attitude of health workers and vaccination teams), inadequate infrastructure and equipment and weak political will. Community level factors included the attitudes of community stakeholders and of parents and caregivers. We also identified factors that appeared to facilitate communication activities. These included political support, engagement of traditional and religious institutions and the use of organised communication committees. Conclusions Communication activities are a crucial element of immunization programmes. It is therefore important for policy makers and programme managers to understand the barriers and facilitators affecting the delivery of vaccination communication so as to be able to implement communication interventions more effectively.

Background: Effective communication is a critical component in ensuring that children are fully vaccinated. Although numerous communication interventions have been proposed and implemented in various parts of Nigeria, the range of communication strategies used has not yet been mapped systematically. This study forms part of the ‘Communicate to vaccinate’ (COMMVAC) project, an initiative aimed at building research evidence for improving communication with parents and communities about childhood vaccinations in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: This study aims to: 1) identify the communication strategies used in two states in Nigeria; 2) map these strategies against the existing COMMVAC taxonomy, a global taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions; 3) create a specific Nigerian country map of interventions organised by purpose and target; and 4) analyse gaps between the COMMVAC taxonomy and the Nigerian map. Design: We conducted the study in two Nigerian states: Bauchi State in Northern Nigeria and Cross River State in Southern Nigeria. We identified vaccination communication interventions through interviews carried out among purposively selected stakeholders in the health services and relevant agencies involved in vaccination information delivery; through observations and through relevant documents. We used the COMMVAC taxonomy to organise the interventions we identified based on the intended purpose of the communication and the group to which the intervention was targeted. Results: The Nigerian map revealed that most of the communication strategies identified aimed to inform and educate and remind or recall. Few aimed to teach skills, enhance community ownership, and enable communication. We did not identify any intervention that aimed to provide support or facilitate decision-making. Many interventions had more than one purpose. The main targets for most interventions were caregivers and community members, with few interventions directed at health workers. Most interventions identified were used in the context of campaigns rather than routine immunisation programmes. Conclusions: The identification and development of the Nigerian vaccination communication interventions map could assist programme managers to identify gaps in vaccination communication. The map may be a useful tool as part of efforts to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage in Nigeria and similar settings.

INTRODUCTION:Communication interventions are widely used to promote childhood vaccination and sustain vaccine acceptance, but communication's role in changing people's beliefs and behaviours is not well understood. To determine why these interventions work or where they fail, evaluations must measure a range of outcomes in addition to vaccination uptake. As part of a larger project to develop a preliminary Core Outcome Set for vaccination communication, we conducted a qualitative focus group study exploring how parents and health professionals perceive and experience communication encounters and what outcomes are relevant to them. METHODS:Focus group participants included parents and health professionals involved in vaccination communication (healthcare providers, researchers and policymakers). Participants discussed their experiences with communication for childhood vaccination, and what made the communication 'successful' or 'unsuccessful.' Our analysis involved two stages: first, we thematically analysed the discussions, identifying key parent and professional themes. In stage two, we used an interpretive analysis approach to translate the themes and quotes into measurable outcomes. We compared these outcomes with outcomes measured in vaccination communication trials (previously identified and mapped). RESULTS:We held three focus groups with parents (n = 12) and four with professionals (n = 19). In stage one, we identified six parent themes (primarily related to decision-making) and five professional themes (primarily related to intervention planning, delivery and evaluation). In stage two, we translated 47 outcomes from parents and 73 from professionals (91 total, de-duplicated). All stakeholders discussed attitudes or beliefs and decision-making outcomes most frequently. Most (66%) of the focus group-generated outcomes were not measured in vaccination communication trials. CONCLUSION:Consulting with stakeholders through focus groups allowed us to explore how parents and professionals experienced vaccination communication, identify those aspects of the experience that were important to them, and translate these into outcomes that can be prioritised into a Core Outcome Set and measured in intervention evaluations.

Understanding stakeholders' (parents', communities' and health workers') perspectives of communication about childhood vaccination, including their preferences for its format, delivery and content, is an important step towards designing better communication strategies and ensuring more informed parents. Our objectives were to explore stakeholders' views, experiences and preferences for childhood vaccination communication in Cameroon.In 2014, in the Central and North West Regions of Cameron, we gathered qualitative data for our case study using the following methods: semi structured interviews; observations and informal conversations during routine immunization clinics and three rounds of the National Polio Immunization Campaign; document analysis of reports and mass media communications about vaccination; and a survey of parents. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data to identify themes relating to views, experiences and perceptions of vaccination information and its delivery. Survey data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics.All of the parents interviewed felt that vaccinating their child was important, and trusted the information provided by health workers. However, many parents wanted more information. Parents did not always feel that they could ask questions during vaccination appointments. All participants felt that health workers and vaccination clinics were important sources of information. Social mobilisation activities such as door-to-door visits and announcements during religious services were important and accepted ways of communicating information, especially during vaccination campaigns. Information communicated through mass media and text messages was also seen as important. In general, stakeholders believed that more consistent messaging about routine vaccination through community channels would be helpful to remind parents of the importance of routine vaccination during ongoing rounds of vaccination campaigns against polio.This study confirms that parents regard information about childhood vaccination as important, but that health services need to be organized in ways that prioritize and facilitate communication, particularly about routine vaccination.

Effective vaccination communication with parents is critical in efforts to overcome barriers to childhood vaccination, tackle vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage. Health workers should be able to provide information to parents and other caregivers and support them in reaching decisions about vaccinating their children. Limited information exists regarding the perceptions of caregivers and health workers on the vaccination communication strategies employed in Nigeria. This study, which forms part of the 'Communicate to vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, aims to explore the perceptions and experiences of caregivers and health workers in Nigeria on vaccination communication strategies implemented in their settings.We conducted the study in two States: Bauchi in Northern Nigeria and Cross River in the south. We carried out observations (n = 40), in-depth interviews (n = 14) and focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 12) amongst 14 purposively selected health workers, two community leaders and 84 caregivers in the two states. We transcribed data verbatim and analysed the data using a framework analysis approach.Caregivers were informed about vaccination activities through three main sources: health facilities (during health education sessions conducted at antenatal or immunization clinics); media outlets; and announcements (in churches/mosques, communities and markets). Caregivers reported that the information received was very useful. Their preferred sources of information included phone text messages, town announcers, media and church/mosque announcements. Some caregivers perceived the clinic environment, long waiting times and health worker attitudes as barriers to receiving vaccination information.When delivering communication interventions, health workers described issues tied to poor communication skills; poor motivation; and attitudes of community members, including vaccine resistance.Communication about vaccination involves more than the message but is also influenced by the environment and the attitudes of the deliverer and receiver. It is pertinent for health policy makers and programme managers to understand these factors so as to effectively implement communication approaches.

Background: Improved communication about childhood vaccination is fundamental to increasing vaccine uptake in low-income countries. Mozambique, with 64% of children fully vaccinated, uses a range of communication interventions to promote uptake of childhood immunisation. Objectives: Using a taxonomy developed by the ‘Communicate to Vaccinate’ (COMMVAC) project, the study aims to identify and classify the existing communication interventions for vaccination in Mozambique and to find the gaps. Methods: We used a qualitative research approach to identify the range of communication interventions used in Mozambique. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with key purposively selected personnel at national level and relevant documents were collected and analysed. These data were complemented with observations of communication during routine vaccination and campaigns in Nampula province. We used the COMMVAC taxonomy, which organises vaccination communication intervention according to its intended purpose and the population targeted, to map both routine and campaign interventions. Results: We identified interventions used in campaign and routine vaccination, or in both, fitting five of the seven taxonomy purposes, with informing or educating community members predominating. We did not identify any interventions that aimed to provide support or facilitate decision-making. There were interventions for all main target groups, although fewer for health providers. Overlap occurred: for example, interventions often targeted both parents and community members. Conclusions: We consider that the predominant focus on informing and educating community members is appropriate in the Mozambican context, where there is a high level of illiteracy and poor knowledge of the reasons for vaccination. We recommend increasing interventions for health providers, in particular training them in better communication for vaccination. The taxonomy was useful for identifying gaps, but needs to be more user-friendly if it is to be employed as a tool by health service managers.