Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Abstract

Background Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents’ views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination. Objectives ‐ Explore parents’ and informal caregivers’ views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. ‐ Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. ‐ Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020. Selection criteria We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents’ or caregivers’ views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided. Data collection and analysis We used a pre‐specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income‐level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta‐ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE‐CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and...

Parents’ vaccination information seeking, satisfaction with and trust in medical providers in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study

“…Building on existing literature, our study provides evidence demonstrating how VH parents can be characterised by their lower levels of satisfaction and trust, and that this may be an important basis for a vicious circle of information seeking, dissatisfaction, distrust and VH, as previous studies have shown the importance of trust when it comes to addressing VH 8 42 43. Furthermore, there is a need to examine decision making on childhood vaccinations and underimmunisation among VH parents in countries where little research has been conducted 1.…”

Community-based Case Studies of Vaccine Hesitancy and the COVID-19 Response in South Africa; The VaxScenes Study

“…Contextual factors that shape the enabling environment for vaccine uptake within a middle-income country like South Africa might be expected to play a bigger role in levels of vaccine hesitancy when compared with the results found in other studies which are largely conducted in high-income countries [15, 16]. For example, the availability and cost of transport is regularly a barrier to access to healthcare services in resource constrained communities [17, 18]. In addition, the dominance of social media has been shown in a global study to directly impact on vaccine uptake [19].…”

“…Ensuring optimal uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in South Africa would thus involve multiple factors including knowledge, creating an enabling environment, addressing social influences, and personal motivation [18, 27, 28]. The preceding sections highlight the need for a ground up, contextually informed approach, that recognises the lived experience and understanding of individuals and places them in the social world in which they live and work.…”

Engaging Canadians in evidence-based communication about vaccines: a scoping review protocol of immunisation support programs in Canada

“…Factors of vaccine hesitancy have been well documented in the literature (for reviews, see studies by Aw et al, 6 Cooper et al, 7 Leask et al, 8 Hasnan and Tan6–9). Although vaccine hesitancy can be associated with demographic characteristics such as age, education and political stance,10 factors of hesitancy are typically driven by broader influences11 and are largely context-specific 7 12. Acceptance of vaccines is influenced by a myriad of factors,3 including mistrust of health authorities13 14; religious beliefs15 16 and misinformation 17.…”

“…Dissemination of information about vaccines through immunisation support programmes, such as knowledge translation programmes that are multicomponent and dialogue-based,26 can help to encourage the acceptance of vaccines among those considered to be vaccine hesitant 27. Integral to the success of vaccine promotion strategies include building a rapport with those hesitant or opposed to vaccination and tailoring the conversation according to factors influencing vaccine perceptions 7 8. Conversations and information dissemination about immunisation can occur through various settings (eg, clinics, schools, community centres) to different sections of the population (eg, urban, rural, indigenous, vulnerable persons), by diverse teams (eg, nurses, pharmacists, educators) 28 29.…”