Interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about early childhood vaccination

Sæterdal, Ingvil; Lewin, Simon; Austvoll‐Dahlgren, Astrid; Glenton, Claire; Munabi‐Babigumira, Susan

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010232.pub2

Cited by 74 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 147 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The search strategy yielded 15 literature reviews or metaanalysis that met the eligibility criteria [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The majority of these were published in the last 3 years (9/15).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews

Dubé

Gagnon

MacDonald

2015

Vaccine

455

342

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Globally, most of the interventions analysed in the reviews that were examined for the present study were primarily to inform or to educate about vaccination [13,14,16,17,20,21,25]. Brief written educational interventions (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews

Dubé

Gagnon

MacDonald

2015

Vaccine

455

342

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review focusing on LMIC (Oyo-Ita et al 2011) identified three trials directly or indirectly related to concerns. These studies were of moderate quality and showed promising effects on coverage rates; two of them were the only two studies included in the review by Saeterdal et al (2014). The systematic review of Kaufman et al (2013) included studies which assessed face-to-face communication directed to individual parents and concluded that the low quality evidence available did not seem to make any difference on vaccination status, knowledge or understanding of vaccination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposing concerns about vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Muñoz

Llamas

Bosch‐Capblanch

2015

Int J Public Health

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Concerns about vaccination lead to under-and no-vaccination. Our objective is to synthesise and expose evidence on individuals' and communities' concerns about vaccination to influence current debates on strategies to improve vaccination coverage in low-and middle-income countries. Methods Systematic literature review till February 2014, following standard methods. Published and grey literature that focused on individuals and community concerns on childhood vaccinations were selected. Results 44 quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies were included. Main reported concerns referred to perceptions of vaccine harms (e.g. attribution of fatal events). Other concerns included programme distrust (mainly due to rumours and conspiracies) and health system unfriendliness. Conclusions Concerns about vaccination are widespread and further worsen the challenges related to programmatic and health system barriers to vaccination. There is a disconnection between qualitative and quantitative research which misses the opportunity to quantify what is reported in the former. Strikingly, there is a wealth of evidence on concerns but much lesser evidence on interventions to address them. We welcome World Health Organization initiative to tackle vaccine hesitancy and call for the synthesis of evidence and production of guidance on strategies to address concerns on vaccination.

show abstract

“…This also fits with emerging dialogues in the literature 61 and the lack of an optimally effective communication mode evidenced by multiple Cochrane reviews. 189,190 The supplementary questions included in the stated preference study identified some differences in attitudes to receiving information, which introduces the concept of personalising information provision. For personalised information provision to occur there is a need for multiple formats to be available, giving rise to the idea of an 'information tool kit'.…”

Section: What Does This Study Add?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Provision of information about newborn screening antenatally: a sequential exploratory mixed-methods project

Ulph

Wright

Dharni

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundParticipation in the UK Newborn Bloodspot Screening Programme (NBSP) requires parental consent but concerns exist about whether or not this happens in practice and the best methods and timing to obtain consent at reasonable cost.ObjectivesTo collate all possible modes of prescreening communication and consent for newborn (neonatal) screening (NBS); examine midwives’, screening professionals’ and users’ views about the feasibility, efficiency and impact on understanding of each; measure midwives’ and parents’ preferences for information provision; and identify key drivers of cost-effectiveness for alternative modes of information provision.DesignSix study designs were used: (1) realist review – to generate alternative communication and consent models; (2) qualitative interviews with parents and health professionals – to examine the implications of current practice for understanding and views on alternative models; (3) survey and observation of midwives – to establish current costs; (4) stated preference surveys with midwives, parents and potential future parents – to establish preferences for information provision; (5) economic analysis – to identify cost-effectiveness drivers of alternative models; and (6) stakeholder validation focus groups and interviews – to examine the acceptability, views and broader impact of alternative communication and consent models.SettingProviders and users of NBS in England.ParticipantsStudy 2: 45 parents and 37 health professionals; study 3: 22 midwives and eight observations; study 4: 705 adults aged 18–45 years and 134 midwives; and study 6: 12 health-care professionals and five parents.ResultsThe realist review identified low parental knowledge and evidence of coercive consent practices. Interview, focus group and stated preference data suggested a preference for full information, with some valuing this more than choice. Health professionals preferred informed choice models but parents and health professionals queried whether or not current consent was fully informed. Barriers to using leaflets effectively were highlighted. All studies indicated that a ‘personalised’ approach to NBS communication, allowing parents to select the mode and level of information suited to their learning needs, could have added value. A personalised approach should rely on midwife communication and should occur in the third trimester. Overall awareness was identified as requiring improvement. Starting NBS communication by alerting parents that they have a choice to make and telling them that samples could be stored are both likely to enhance engagement. The methods of information provision and maternal anxiety causing additional visits to health-care professionals were the drivers of relative cost-effectiveness. Lack of data to populate an economic analysis, confirmed by value of information analysis, indicated a need for further research.LimitationsThere are some limitations with regard to the range of participants used in studies 2 and 3 and so caution should be exercised when interpreting some of the results.ConclusionsThis project highlighted the importance of focusing on information receipt and identified key communication barriers. Health professionals strongly preferred informed consent, which parents endorsed if they were made aware of sample storage. Uniform models of information provision were perceived as ineffective. A choice of information provision was supported by health professionals and parents, which both enhances cost-effectiveness and improves engagement, understanding and the validity of consent. Remaining uncertainties suggest that more research is needed before new communication modes are introduced into practice. Future research should measure the impact of the suggested practice changes (informing in third trimester, information toolkits, changed role of midwife).Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN70227207.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about early childhood vaccination

Cited by 74 publications

References 147 publications

Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews

Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews

Exposing concerns about vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Provision of information about newborn screening antenatally: a sequential exploratory mixed-methods project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About