Vaccines safety and maternal knowledge for enhanced maternal immunization acceptability in rural Uganda: A qualitative study approach.

Background: Maternal immunization is a successful and cost-effective public health strategy. It protects pregnant women and their infants from vaccine-preventable diseases. Uganda is exploring new vaccines for pregnant women like replacing Tetanus Toxoid (TT) with Tetanus-Diphtheria (Td). Research on knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and willingness among pregnant women is needed before the introduction of vaccines for pregnant women. This study was aimed at exploring maternal knowledge, attitudes, willingness, and beliefs towards maternal immunization among pregnant women in rural Uganda.
Methods: This was a qualitative descriptive study. Ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted at antenatal care (ANC) clinics and in a rural community of Uganda. Five key informant interviews (KIIs) were done with health workers, for triangulation. Considering context and research characteristics, data were collected and thematically analyzed.
Results: Women were familiar with the importance of maternal vaccines, had positive attitudes, and expressed willingness to take them. Acceptance of a new vaccine could be affected by worries of pregnant women and that of their partners, who influence health seeking decisions in a home concerning adverse events, following the maternal immunization (AEFI). There were misconceptions about introduction of vaccines such as the belief that vaccines treat malaria and general body weakness, and being used as guinea pigs to test for the vaccine before its introduction to the larger population.
Conclusion: A range of diverse sentiments and beliefs may affect uptake and acceptability of vaccines that are introduced in communities. For instance, ignoring vaccine safety concerns may impede maternal immunization acceptability, because pregnant women and their husbands are concerned about AEFI. Moreover, husbands make all health-seeking decisions at home, and their opinion is key, when considering such interventions.
Competing Interests: JS and DW are employed by commercial companies: Putnam Associates and Weibel Consulting respectively. They have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.