Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Hesitancy'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type



Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


First name


Last name


Salutation


Country


Occupation


Organization


Website


I am joining because:

Found 21 results

  1. The Guide presents recommendations for vaccine safety communication with a specific focus on regulatory bodies.
  2. The #SCIENCE to SUPPORT #VACCINES IS CLEAR. However, sometimes, The MESSAGE to The LAY COMMUNITY IS NOT. Children and teens enjoy reading #comics: A GATEWAY to HEALTH LITERACY This why we make this mini-series. #VaccinesWork & #VaccinesSaveLives
  3. The Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) is an independent health education charity and the world’s longest-established public health body. The RSPH report, Moving the Needle, looks at the importance of vaccination through childhood, working-age adulthood, and later life, and explores the barriers to uptake at different stages of the life course. The discovery of our ability to immunise people against disease has had an almost unprecedented impact on human health. Though the UK has a world-leading vaccination programme and this should be celebrated, history and current events have shown that fear and misinformation about vaccines can cause significant damage to seemingly stable vaccination programmes. While improving access to vaccines remains crucial in addressing low uptake rates – and especially in reducing inequalities in uptake – understanding the public’s attitudes to vaccination is also a valuable tool for increasing and maintaining uptake.
  4. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
  5. The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term ‘vaccine’ rather than ‘vaccination’ hesitancy,although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand,low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
  6. The relations between vaccine hesitancy (VH) and individual socioeconomic status (SES) vary with context and remain poorly understood. We examined associations between parental SES and VH levels and their potential mediation by two attitudinal factors: commitment to making “good” health-related decisions and trust in mainstream medicine. Vaccine refusal and delay are frequent among French parents, especially the more educated. Our results suggest that levels of commitment and trust play a key role in shaping VH. Suitable educational interventions are needed to restore trust in authorities and vaccines. Helping healthcare professionals to communicate better with vaccine-hesitant parents is also essential.
  7. Many countries and communities are dealing with groups and growing numbers of individuals who are delaying or refusing recommended vaccinations for themselves or their children. This has created a need for immunization programs to find approaches and strategies to address vaccine hesitancy. An important source of useful approaches and strategies is found in the frameworks, practices, and principles used by commercial and social marketers, many of which have been used by immunization programs.This review examines how social and commercial marketing principles and practices can be used to help address vaccine hesitancy. It provides an introduction to key marketing and social marketing concepts,identifies some of the major challenges to applying commercial and social marketing approaches to immunization programs, illustrates how immunization advocates and programs can use marketing and social marketing approaches to address vaccine hesitancy, and identifies some of the lessons that commercial and non-immunization sectors have learned that may have relevance for immunization. While the use of commercial and social marketing practices and principles does not guarantee success, the evidence, lessons learned, and applications to date indicate that they have considerable value in fostering vaccine acceptance.
  8. In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term “vaccine hesitancy”, as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident.The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination.The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.
  9. Based on the concerns about vaccine hesitancy and its impact on vaccine uptake rates and the performance of national immunization programmes, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy [1], carried out a review, and proposed a set of recommendations directed to the public health community, to WHO and its partners, and to the World Health Organization (WHO) member states. The final recommendations issued by SAGE in October 2014 fall into three categories: (1) those focused on the need to increase the understanding of vaccine hesitancy, its determinants and the rapidly changing challenges it entails; (2) those focused on dealing with the structures and organizational capacity to decrease hesitancy and increase acceptance of vaccines at the global, national and local levels; (3) and those focused on the sharing of lessons learnt and effective practices from various countries and settings as well as the development, validation and implementation of new tools to address hesitancy.
  10. When faced with vaccine hesitancy, public health authorities are looking for effective strategies to address this issue. In this paper, the findings of 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis that have examined the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance are presented and discussed. From the literature, there is no strong evidence to recommend any specific intervention to address vaccine hesitancy/refusal. The reviewed studies included interventions with diverse content and approaches that were implemented in different settings and targeted various populations. Few interventions were directly targeted to vaccine hesitant individuals. Given the paucity of information on effective strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, when interventions are implemented, planning a rigorous evaluation of their impact on vaccine hesitancy/vaccine acceptance will be essential
  11. Vaccine refusal has an impact on public health, and the human pappillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is particularly underutilized. Research suggests that it may be difficult to change vaccine-related attitudes, and there is currently no good evidence to recommend any particular intervention strategy. One reason for vaccine hesitancy is lack of trust that vaccine harms are adequately documented and reported, yet few communication strategies have explicitly attempted to improve this trust. This study tested the possibility that data from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) can be used to increase trust that vaccine harms are adequately researched and that potential harms are disclosed to the public, and thereby improve perceptions of vaccines. In the study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three communication interventions. All participants read the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vaccine information statement (VIS) for the HPV vaccine. Two other groups were exposed to additional information about VAERS, either summary data or full detailed reports of serious adverse events from 2013. Results showed that the CDC's VIS alone significantly increased perceptions of vaccine benefits and decreased perceived risks.
  12. This page deals with the challenge for many physicians against vaccine hesitancy and refusal among families. Case studies based in real-life scenarios are provided to help physicians to demonstrate effective vaccine safety communication. Trainees are asked a series of questions and provided with immediate feedback for their responses
  13. Public trust can be improved by learning from past mistakes, by establishing a standing forum for review of new concerns as they arise, and by maintaining a robust vaccine safety system. Developing standard guidelines for reporting causality assessment in case reports would help educate physicians and prevent future unnecessary concerns based on false assumptions of causal relationships.
  14. Vaccine Volume 36, Issue 35, 23 August 2018, Pages 5273-5281 Measuring vaccine hesitancy: Field testing the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy survey tool in Guatemala Author links open overlay panelGretchen J.DomekabSean T.O'LearyacSheanaBullbdMichaelBronsertbcIngrid L.Contreras-RoldaneGuillermo AntonioBolaños VenturafAllisonKempeacEdwin J.Asturiasabg https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.046Get rights and content Under a Creative Commons license open access Highlights • The Vaccine Hesitancy Survey (VHS) was field tested in urban and rural Guatemala. • Vaccine shortages and access in LMICs are important structural issues to consider. • Participants had difficulty understanding and using the Likert scale format. • Factor analysis showed a two-factor structure within the VHS Likert scale items. • More work is needed to refine this survey for improved global utility.
  15. Publication date: 22 October 2018 Source: Vaccine, Volume 36, Issue 44 Author(s): Jessica Kaufman, Rebecca Ryan, Simon Lewin, Xavier Bosch-Capblanch, Claire Glenton, Julie Cliff, Angela Oyo-Ita, Artur Manuel Muloliwa, Afiong Oku, Heather Ames, Gabriel Rada, Yuri Cartier, Sophie Hill Abstract Background Communication interventions for childhood vaccination are promising strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, but current research is limited by the outcomes measured. Most studies measure only vaccination-related outcomes, with minimal consideration of vaccine hesitancy-relevant intermediate outcomes. This impedes understanding of which interventions or elements are effective. It is also unknown which outcomes are important to the range of stakeholders affected by vaccine hesitancy. Outcome selection shapes the evidence base, informing future interventions and trials, and should reflect stakeholder priorities. Therefore, our aim was to identify which outcome domains (i.e. broad outcome categories) are most important to different stakeholders, identifying preliminary core outcome domains to inform evaluation of three common vaccination communication types: (i) communication to inform or educate, (ii) remind or recall, and (iii) enhance community ownership. Methods We conducted a two-stage online Delphi survey, involving four stakeholder groups: parents or community members, healthcare providers, researchers, and government or non-governmental organisation representatives. Participants rated the importance of eight outcome domains for each of the three communication types. They also rated specific outcomes within one domain (“attitudes or beliefs”) and provided feedback about the survey. Results Collectively, stakeholder groups prioritised outcome domains differently when considering the effects of different communication types. For communication that aims to (i) inform or educate, the most important outcome domain is “knowledge or understanding”; for (ii) reminder communication, “vaccination status and behaviours”; and for (iii) community engagement communication, “community participation”. All stakeholder groups rated most outcome domains as very important or critical. The highest rated specific outcome within the “attitudes or beliefs” domain was “trust”. Conclusion This Delphi survey expands the field of core outcomes research and identifies preliminary core outcome domains for measuring the effects of communication about childhood vaccination. The findings support the argument that vaccination communication is not a single homogenous intervention – it has a range of purposes, and vaccination communication evaluators should select outcomes accordingly. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/vaccine
  16. Publication date: 22 October 2018 Source: Vaccine, Volume 36, Issue 44 Author(s): Angus Thomson, Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau, L. Suzanne Suggs https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/vaccine
  17. This is a web page by the American Academy of Pediatrics with guidance for healthcare providers for communication with vaccine hesitant parents . The page includes: Types of parental immunization attitudes Key points to consider Strategies for Talking to Parents Policies and Resources
  18. For most readers of “Vaccine,” it is a truism that vaccines represent one of the safest and most effective tools available in global efforts to control and prevent infectious diseases. Yet, parents searching the Internet about whether or not it is safe to get themselves or their children vaccinated will find this consensus recast as a controversy, or even a conspiracy. Many of the top internet search results question or dispute the scientific consensus about the safety and effectiveness of some or all vaccine son a number of grounds, from secular to religious to political-philosophical. The gap between expert consensus and the thinking among many publics around the world is not limited to the Internet.The proliferation of conflicting information and the ease with which misinformation can amplify — via old and new media channels —provide a confusing context for parents seeking additional guidance from health workers, religious leaders, family members, or other trusted sources, many of whom may themselves be misinformed about the risks and benefits of vaccines. In this context, perhaps it is not surprising that some caregivers have become “hesitant” about decisions to vaccinate.
  19. While most people vaccinate according to the recommended schedule, this success is challenged by individuals and groups who delay or refuse vaccines. The aim of this article is to review studies on vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers (HCPs), and the influences of their own vaccine confidence and vaccination behaviour on their vaccination recommendations to others. The search strategy was developed in Medline and then adapted across several multidisciplinary mainstream databases including Embase Classic & Embase, and PschInfo. All foreign language articles were included if the abstract was available in English. A total of 185 articles were included in the literature review. 66% studied the vaccine hesitancy among HCPs, 17% analysed concerns, attitudes and/or behaviour of HCPs towards vaccinating others, and 9% were about evaluating intervention(s). Overall, knowledge about particular vaccines, their efficacy and safety, helped to build HCPs own confidence in vaccines and their willingness to recommend vaccines to others. The importance of societal endorsement and support from colleagues was also reported. In the face of emerging vaccine hesitancy, HCPs still remain the most trusted advisor and influencer of vaccination decisions. The capacity and confidence of HCPs, though, are stretched as they are faced with time constraints, increased workload and limited resources, and often have inadequate information or training support to address parents’ questions. Overall, HCPs need more support to manage the quickly evolving vaccine environment as well as changing public, especially those who are reluctant or refuse vaccination. Some recommended strategies included strengthening trust between HCPs, health authorities and policymakers, through more shared involvement in the establishment of vaccine recommendations.
  20. Despite relatively high vaccination coverage rates in the European Region, vaccine hesitancy is under-mining individual and community protection from vaccine preventable diseases. At the request of its European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (ETAGE), the Vaccine-preventable Dis-eases and Immunization Programme of the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/EURO) developed tools to help countries address hesitancy more effectively. The Guide to Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP), an evidence and theory based behavioral insight framework, issued in 2013, provides tools to (1)identify vaccine hesitant population subgroups, (2) diagnose their demand- and supply-side immunization barriers and enablers and (3) design evidence-informed responses to hesitancy appropriate to the subgroup setting, context and vaccine. The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE)through its Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy has closely followed the development, implementation,use and evolution of TIP concluding that TIP, with local adaptation, could be a valuable tool for use in all WHO regions, to help address countries’ vaccine hesitancy problems. The TIP principles are applicable to communicable, noncommunicable and emergency planning where behavioral decisions influence outcomes.
  21. Mitja Vrdelja Alenka Kraigher Dejan Verčič Samo Kropivnik European Journal of Public Health, Volume 28, Issue 5, 1 October 2018, Pages 934–939, Published: 04 July 2018 Abstract Background Vaccination coverage is dropping in several countries, including Slovenia. More and more people hesitate or even reject vaccinations. As the influence of the internet grows, the question becomes how to communicate about vaccination to parents in order to prevent this drop in vaccination coverage among children. Methods For the first time in Europe, the Situational Theory of Publics (STOP) has been used in the field of vaccination to segment mothers to subpublics, and to prescribe a clearly defined form of communication for each of the segmented groups. In the survey, 1704 mothers participated who gave birth in 2014 and 2015 in Slovenia. Results The study showed that mothers react passively to information on vaccination no matter whether they come across it coincidentally or intentionally. Most often, they seek information about vaccination from friends or online. The more concerned they are about the safety of vaccines, the more they search for information about vaccination, and their communication is consequently more active. The mothers that problematize the safety of vaccines more, and are afraid of their adverse events tend to be in favour of alternative options. Conclusions Our research demonstrated that the STOP can be applied to the field of vaccination. There is a huge need for intensive professional communication about vaccination on the internet and social media. The improvement of the communicational competences of doctors and healthcare workers is essential to achieve better communication with parents and the media, and needs to be focused on mothers and pregnant women.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Guidelines