Search

Health care provider recommendations are among the most important factors influencing parents' decisions to vaccinate their adolescents. However, delivery of high-quality health care provider recommendations for vaccination is not universal. There is wide variation in the strength, timeliness and consistency of the delivery of recommendations for all adolescent vaccines. The factors that influence health care providers' recommendations are multi-level and can be conceptualized in much the same way as vaccine acceptance among parents. Health care providers are influenced by their own attitudes and beliefs about a vaccine and also by the patient they are treating and by the community in which they practice as well as state and national level vaccine policy. We propose a multi-level framework for understanding the factors that influence health care providers' recommendations at the individual, interpersonal and community level to both develop and adapt interventions to improve providers' recommendations., Author(s): Mallory K. Ellingson [sup.1] , Robert A. Bednarczyk [sup.2] [sup.3] [sup.4] , Sean T. O'Leary [sup.5] [sup.6] , Jason L. Schwartz [sup.7] , Eugene D. Shapiro [sup.1] [sup.8] , [...]

Background: Maternal vaccine coverage is suboptimal, and a substantial proportion of parents have concerns about vaccines. Most parents seek out vaccine information during and immediately after their first pregnancy. No study to our knowledge has analyzed survey data to identify homogeneous groups of pregnant women based on their vaccine attitudes and beliefs. Aims: To identify homogeneity among groups of pregnant women based on their vaccine attitudes and beliefs to facilitate audience segmentation and targeting of tailored educational interventions. Method: Between June 2017 and July 2018, we surveyed 2,196 pregnant women recruited from geographically and sociodemographically diverse prenatal care practices in Georgia and Colorado. We then performed a latent class analysis to identify homogeneity among groups of pregnant women. Results: Our latent class analysis produced three groups of pregnant women: vaccine supporters (36% of women), vaccine acceptors (41%), and vaccine skeptics (23%). Discussion: The major difference between the supporters and the acceptors were whether they mostly "strongly agreed" or just "agreed" to Likert-type scale survey items assessing their vaccine attitudes and beliefs. The skeptics most frequently chose "disagree" or "don't know" for items assessing attitudinal constructs such as confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy and disease susceptibility. However, even skeptics often chose "agree" for items assessing constructs such as disease severity and self-efficacy. Conclusions: This article provides useful insight into the homogeneity among groups of pregnant women based on their vaccine attitudes and beliefs. This knowledge should help facilitate audience segmentation and targeting of tailored educational interventions among this population.

The worldwide elimination of measles and rubella is feasible, but not without overcoming the substantial challenge of vaccine hesitancy. This challenge is complicated by the spread of misinformation and disinformation fueled by rapidly progressing technologies and evolving forms of online communication. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has only added further complexity to this challenge. However, considerable progress has been made in understanding the scope of the problem and the complex factors that influence vaccine hesitancy. Our understanding of evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy has grown significantly, including evidence for effective communication and behavioral interventions. In this article, we review measles and rubella vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. We then provide an overview of evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy, including communication strategies and behavioral interventions. This article is relevant to healthcare professionals, health system leaders, public health professionals, policymakers, community leaders, and any individuals who have a role in addressing vaccine hesitancy in their communities. Finally, we review future directions and major areas of research need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunization is one of the most effective ways to prevent infectious diseases. However, vaccination rates are suboptimal in the United States. Obstetric providers are critical in influencing vaccine decision making among pregnant women, as trust between a patient and provider may facilitate willingness to accept vaccination. Little is known about how power between a patient and provider affects vaccine acceptance. This study explored pregnant women's trust in obstetric providers within the context of vaccines. Using concepts from the relational theory of power, we conducted 40 in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of pregnant women from four Ob-Gyn practices each in Georgia and Colorado. Results suggest that to enhance trust, providers could gain distributive power by conveying empathy. Designated power through medical experience was associated with both trust and distrust, as some women trusted their providers because of their authority and medical credentials, while others viewed authority and experience as reasons to distrust their provider. To increase acceptance, providers should acknowledge the underlying power dynamics within these interpersonal relationships and strengthen rapport with patients through empathy and dialogue.

Home health aides (HHAs) care for patients highly vulnerable to COVID-19 and are disproportionately women from minority communities that have been adversely impacted by COVID-19. Yet, direct care workers are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to others. As the pandemic evolves, interest in vaccination may decrease suggesting the need for relevant vaccine messaging to HHAs. Objectives: (1) to describe HHAs and administrators' perspectives related to COVID-19 vaccination messaging, and (2) to co-design a Communication Toolkit to create COVID-19 vaccine messages. Methods: HHAs and administrators from 4 geographically diverse Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) hospice agencies were recruited for a multi-method process involving qualitative interviews (17 HHAs and 5 administrators), community engagement (CE) studios, and development of a Communication Toolkit. Interviews were guided by the PEN-3 conceptual framework to explore barriers and facilitators to vaccination. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Despite power differences, HHAs and administrators share a commitment to protecting patients affected by serious illness. HHAs desire vaccine messaging that includes personal narratives, good news about the vaccine, and facts about benefits and risks of the vaccine. Preferred message formats include the agency intranet, daily briefings, or "little seeds" (ie, short, high-impact information). Through the studios, HHAs provided input on a Toolkit prototype with messages tailored to the context of home care. Conclusions: Grounded in the commitment of HHAs and administrators to protecting vulnerable patients, we co-created an adaptable Communication Toolkit to address COVID-19 vaccination misinformation and mistrust among direct care workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]