Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

Abstract

BackgroundEarly childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face‐to‐face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of face‐to‐face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.Search methodsWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs evaluating the effects of face‐to‐face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face‐to‐face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.Data collection and analysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.Main resultsIn this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster‐RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster‐RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low‐ or middle‐ income countries.All included studies compared face‐to‐face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any ...

Nature and efficacy of interventions addressing eating psychopathology in athletes: A systematic review of randomised and nonrandomised trials

“…All of the interventions in this review were delivered via face‐to‐face approaches, and most ( n = 11) were delivered in North America. Although face‐to‐face intervention delivery approaches offer the potential for interaction, real‐time discussion, and peer support (e.g., Kaufman et al, ), intervention scalability is also important to consider in determining their wider potential impact and value. Logistic, resource, and fidelity concerns are common challenges when delivering face‐to‐face interventions on a larger scale (e.g., Milat, King, Bauman, & Redman, ).…”

Negotiated compliance at the street level: Personalizing immunization in England, Israel and Sweden

“…A few interventions have attempted to educate parents to encourage them to comply with vaccination, which follow a ‘knowledge‐deficit’ approach (Dubé et al ; Dubé et al ). Such interventions span from face‐to‐face interactions for educating or informing parents about early childhood vaccination (Ryman et al ; Saeterdal ; Kaufman et al ) to mass media campaigns to promote vaccination uptake (Shea et al ). Similar to the themes of the broader noncompliance literature, additional studies of noncompliance with childhood immunizations draw on factors that have been found to influence parents’ vaccination hesitance and recommend what government should or could do to enhance compliance (e.g., Dubé et al ).…”

Which Communicative Strategies Do Slovak Pediatricians Choose to Facilitate Parental Decision-Making about Childhood Vaccination?

“…Recently, the focus has shifted towards exploring particular communication strategies, even though this work is still in its infancy (Kaufman et al, 2013). The logic of this shift is that effective interaction can address concerns about vaccines and increase parents' motivation; on the other hand, poor communication from a pediatrician can "tip" a hesitant parent towards refusal or fail to motivate a cautious parent towards acceptance (Leask et al, 2012).…”