Objectives This study assessed influences on vaccination decisions among parents of young children and examined common vaccination information and advice sources. Methods Using panel samples of parents of children under 7 years, web-based surveys were conducted in 2012 (n = 2603) and 2014 (n = 2518). A vaccine decision-making typology (non-hesitant acceptors, hesitant acceptors, delayers, and refusers) was established and weighted population estimates of potential factors influencing parental vaccination decision (e.g., provider influence, source of information and advice) were computed by year and decision type. Results Delayers and refusers were more likely than acceptors to know someone whose child experienced a severe reaction to a vaccine or delayed/refused vaccine(s). High proportions of delayers (2012: 33.4%, 2014: 33.9%) and refusers (2012: 49.6%, 2014: 58.6%) reported selecting their healthcare provider based on whether the provider would allow them to delay/refuse vaccines. Providers were the most frequently reported trusted vaccine information source among all parents, though more often by acceptors than refusers (2012, 2014: p < 0.01). We found differing patterns of provider advice-seeking and internet as a reliable vaccine information source by group. Among those who had considered delay/refusal, trust in their healthcare provider’s advice was the most common reason cited for their decision reversal. Conclusions for Practice Provider trust and communication along with varying degrees of personal-network influences likely contribute to immunization decisions of parents. Vaccine hesitant parents often seek providers amenable to accommodating their vaccine beliefs. Providers may benefit from vaccine communication training as their recommendations may influence hesitant parents to immunize their children.

No abstract

Objective Understanding the current status of parents’ vaccine decision making is crucial to inform public policy. We sought to assess changes in vaccine decisions among parents of young children. Methods We conducted a web-based national poll of parents of children <7 years in 2012 and 2014. Participants reported vaccine decisions for their youngest child. We calculated survey-weighted population estimates of overall immunizations decisions, and delay/refusal rates for specific vaccines. Results In 2012, 89.2% (95% CI, 87.3–90.8%) reported accepting or planning to accept all recommended non-influenza childhood vaccines, 5.5% (4.5–6.6%) reported intentionally delaying one or more, and 5.4% (4.1–6.9%) reported refusing one or more vaccines. In 2014, the acceptance, delay, and refusal rates were 90.8% (89.3–92.1%), 5.6% (4.6–6.9%), and 3.6% (2.8–4.5%), respectively. Between 2012 and 2014, intentional vaccine refusal decreased slightly among parents of older children (2–6 years) but not younger children (0–1 years). The proportion of parents working to catch up on all vaccines increased while those refusing some but not all vaccines decreased. The South experienced a significant increase in estimated acceptance (90.1–94.1%) and a significant decrease in intentional ongoing refusal (5.0–2.1%). Vaccine delay increased in the Northeast (3.2–8.8%). Conclusions Nationally, acceptance and ongoing intentional delay of recommended non-influenza childhood vaccines were stable. These findings suggest that more effort is warranted to counter persistent vaccine hesitancy, particularly at the local level. Longitudinal monitoring of immunization attitudes is also warranted to evaluate temporal shifts over time and geographically.

BackgroundUnderrepresentation of older-age racial and ethnic minorities in clinical research is a significant barrier to health in the United States, as it impedes medical research advancement of effective preventive and therapeutic strategies.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to develop and test the feasibility of a community-developed faith-based intervention and evaluate its potential to increase the number of older African Americans in clinical research.MethodsUsing a cluster-randomized design, we worked with six matched churches to enroll at least 210 persons. We provided those in the intervention group churches with three educational sessions on the role of clinical trials in addressing health disparity topics, and those in the comparison group completed surveys at the same timepoints. All persons enrolled in the study received ongoing information via newsletters and direct outreach on an array of clinical studies seeking participants. We evaluated the short-, mid-, and longer-term effects of the interventional program on clinical trial-related outcomes (ie, screening and enrollment).ResultsFrom 2012 to 2013, we enrolled a balanced cohort of 221 persons in the program. At a 3-month follow-up, mean intention to seek information about clinical trials was higher than baseline in both treatment (mu=7.5/10; sigma=3.1) and control arms (mu=6.6/10; sigma=3.3), with the difference more pronounced in the treatment arm. The program demonstrated strong retention at 3-month (95.4%, 211/221) and 6-month timepoints (94.1%, 208/221).ConclusionsThe “Dose of Hope” program addressed an unmet need to reach an often overlooked audience of older African Americans who are members of churches and stimulate their interest in clinical trial participation. The program demonstrated its appeal in the delivery of effective messages and information about health disparities, and the role of clinical research in addressing these challenges.