Perceptions and experiences of childhood vaccination communication strategies among caregivers and health workers in Nigeria: A qualitative study

Abstract

BackgroundEffective vaccination communication with parents is critical in efforts to overcome barriers to childhood vaccination, tackle vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage. Health workers should be able to provide information to parents and other caregivers and support them in reaching decisions about vaccinating their children. Limited information exists regarding the perceptions of caregivers and health workers on the vaccination communication strategies employed in Nigeria. This study, which forms part of the ‘Communicate to vaccinate’ (COMMVAC) project, aims to explore the perceptions and experiences of caregivers and health workers in Nigeria on vaccination communication strategies implemented in their settings.MethodologyWe conducted the study in two States: Bauchi in Northern Nigeria and Cross River in the south. We carried out observations (n = 40), in-depth interviews (n = 14) and focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 12) amongst 14 purposively selected health workers, two community leaders and 84 caregivers in the two states. We transcribed data verbatim and analysed the data using a framework analysis approach.ResultsCaregivers were informed about vaccination activities through three main sources: health facilities (during health education sessions conducted at antenatal or immunization clinics); media outlets; and announcements (in churches/mosques, communities and markets). Caregivers reported that the information received was very useful. Their preferred sources of information included phone text messages, town announcers, media and church/mosque announcements. Some caregivers perceived the clinic environment, long waiting times and health worker attitudes as barriers to receiving vaccination information.When delivering communication interventions, health workers described issues tied to poor communication skills; poor motivation; and attitudes of community members, including vaccine resistance.ConclusionCommunication about vaccination involves more than the message but is also influenced by the environment and the attitudes of the deliverer and receiver. It is pertinent for health policy makers and programme managers to understand these factors so as to effectively implement communication approaches.

Perceptions of Mothers and Caregivers Regarding the Factors Affecting Low Uptake of Measles Immunisation Among Children Under 5 Years in Nyangana District, Namibia

“…The current study findings are in line with some reasons that were given by mothers at Nyala locality in South Darfur State, Sudan (Ismail et.al, 2014), which included inconvenient times for immunisation, the vaccinator being absent and the unavailability of vaccines. Factors such as long waiting times, in a study conducted in in Nigeria (Oku et al, 2017) the absence of personnel at the health facility, in rural Nigeria (Jegede & Owumi, 2013), have been noted, which reflect similar trends to this study's findings.…”

Factors influencing the implementation of Global Polio Eradication Initiative in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis

“…All studies 29 -30 were published between 2012 and 2017. Four studies were conducted in Nigeria 31 - 30 , three in Pakistan 32 - 33 , two in Ethiopia 29 , 34 and one each in Angola 35 and Cameroon. 36 Figure 1 Factors influencing the implementation of Global Polio Eradication Initiative in low-and middle-income countries: a... Factors influencing the implementation of Global Polio Eradication Initiative in low-and middle-income countries: a...…”

“…Six studies had caregivers including parents as participants 36 , 33 -37 , 30 while 2 studies had health workers as participants. 38 , 30 Stakeholders such as policymakers, programme managers, social mobilization officers/ health educators and representatives were the target audience of one study. 39 Three of the included studies 29 , 38 , 31 used focus group discussions (FGDs) while four 33 , 35 , 37 , 39 used In-depth interviews (IDIs).…”

“…39 Three of the included studies 29 , 38 , 31 used focus group discussions (FGDs) while four 33 , 35 , 37 , 39 used In-depth interviews (IDIs). The remaining four studies 36 -32 , 30 used both FGDs and IDIs. Participant observation was conducted in two studies.…”

“…The quality of all eleven studies was assessed using the CASP checklist (See Appendix S5 in the Online Supplemen-Online Supplementar tary Document y Document). Three studies were assessed as high quality 36 , 39 , 30 five as medium quality 29 , 34 -38 , 37 and three as low quality. 33 -31 None of the studies satisfactorily addressed the issue regarding the impact of the researcher on the individual study outcomes.…”