131
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A critical factor shaping parental attitudes to vaccination is the parent’s interactions with health professionals. An effective interaction can address the concerns of vaccine supportive parents and motivate a hesitant parent towards vaccine acceptance. Poor communication can contribute to rejection of vaccinations or dissatisfaction with care. We sought to provide a framework for health professionals when communicating with parents about vaccination.

          Methods

          Literature review to identify a spectrum of parent attitudes or ‘positions’ on childhood vaccination with estimates of the proportion of each group based on population studies. Development of a framework related to each parental position with determination of key indicators, goals and strategies based on communication science, motivational interviewing and valid consent principles.

          Results

          Five distinct parental groups were identified: the ‘unquestioning acceptor’ (30–40%), the ‘cautious acceptor’ (25–35%); the ‘hesitant’ (20–30%); the ‘late or selective vaccinator’ (2–27%); and the ‘refuser’ of all vaccines (<2%). The goals of the encounter with each group will vary, depending on the parents’ readiness to vaccinate. In all encounters, health professionals should build rapport, accept questions and concerns, and facilitate valid consent. For the hesitant, late or selective vaccinators, or refusers, strategies should include use of a guiding style and eliciting the parent’s own motivations to vaccinate while, avoiding excessive persuasion and adversarial debates. It may be necessary to book another appointment or offer attendance at a specialised adverse events clinic. Good information resources should also be used.

          Conclusions

          Health professionals have a central role in maintaining public trust in vaccination, including addressing parents’ concerns. These recommendations are tailored to specific parental positions on vaccination and provide a structured approach to assist professionals. They advocate respectful interactions that aim to guide parents towards quality decisions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations.

          Perception of health risk can affect medical decisions and health behavior change. Yet the concept of risk is a difficult one for the public to grasp. Whether perceptions of risk affect decisions and behaviors often relies on how messages of risk magnitudes (i.e., likelihood) are conveyed. Based on expert opinion, this article offers, when possible, best practices for conveying magnitude of health risks using numeric, verbal, and visual formats. This expert opinion is based on existing empirical evidence, review of papers and books, and consultations with experts in risk communication. This article also discusses formats to use pertaining to unique risk communication challenges (e.g., conveying small-probability events, interactions). Several recommendations are suggested for enhancing precision in perception of risk by presenting risk magnitudes numerically and visually. Overall, there are little data to suggest best practices for verbal communication of risk magnitudes. Across the 3 formats, few overall recommendations could be suggested because of 1) lack of consistency in testing formats using the same outcomes in the domain of interest, 2) lack of critical tests using randomized controlled studies pitting formats against one another, and 3) lack of theoretical progress detailing and testing mechanisms why one format should be more efficacious in a specific context to affect risk magnitudes than others. Areas of future research are provided that it is hoped will help illuminate future best practices.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Parents with doubts about vaccines: which vaccines and reasons why.

            The goals were (1) to obtain national estimates of the proportions of parents with indicators of vaccine doubt, (2) to identify factors associated with those parents, compared with parents reporting no vaccine doubt indicators, (3) to identify the specific vaccines that prompted doubt and the reasons why, and (4) to describe the main reasons parents changed their minds about delaying or refusing a vaccine for their child. Data were from the National Immunization Survey (2003-2004). Groups included parents who ever got a vaccination for their child although they were not sure it was the best thing to do ("unsure"), delayed a vaccination for their child ("delayed"), or decided not to have their child get a vaccination ("refused"). A total of 3924 interviews were completed. Response rates were 57.9% in 2003 and 65.0% in 2004. Twenty-eight percent of parents responded yes to ever experiencing >or=1 of the outcome measures listed above. In separate analyses for each outcome measure, vaccine safety concern was a predictor for unsure, refused, and delayed parents. The largest proportions of unsure and refused parents chose varicella vaccine as the vaccine prompting their concern, whereas delayed parents most often reported "not a specific vaccine" as the vaccine prompting their concern. Most parents who delayed vaccines for their child did so for reasons related to their child's illness, unlike the unsure and refused parents. The largest proportion of parents who changed their minds about delaying or not getting a vaccination for their child listed "information or assurances from health care provider" as the main reason. Parents who exhibit doubts about immunizations are not all the same. This research suggests encouraging children's health care providers to solicit questions about vaccines, to establish a trusting relationship, and to provide appropriate educational materials to parents.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validity and reliability of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents.

              To assess the construct validity and reliability of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey. Cross-sectional survey of parents of 19-35 month old children in a closed model HMO. We used factor analysis to confirm survey sub-domains and Cronbach's α to determine the internal consistency reliability of sub-domain scales. Construct validity was assessed by linking parental responses to their child's immunization record. Our response rate was 46% (N=230). Factor analysis identified 3 factors that explained 70% of the total variance for the 18 survey items. We deleted 3 items that failed to load highly (>.4) on an identified factor, correlated poorly with other items, or had a hesitant response that was not associated with increased under-immunization. Cronbach's α coefficients for the 3 sub-domain scales created by grouping the remaining 15 items were .74, .84, and .74, respectively. Children of parents with survey scores of 50-79 had 14% more days under-immunized from birth to 19 months (95% CI: 8.0, 20.5) than those with parents who scored <50. Scores of ≥ 80 were associated with 51% more days under-immunized (95% CI: 38.2, 63.4). The revised survey is a valid and reliable instrument to identify vaccine-hesitant parents. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Pediatr
                BMC Pediatr
                BMC Pediatrics
                BioMed Central
                1471-2431
                2012
                21 September 2012
                : 12
                : 154
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Public Health, and Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health University of Sydney and National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
                [2 ]Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, 3rd floor, Neuadd Meirionydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK
                [3 ]York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK
                [4 ]Institute for Applied Health Research, Associate Dean (Research) School of Health and Life Sciences, Buchanan House, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 OBA, UK
                [5 ]Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK
                [6 ]Greg Rowles, General practitioner, 9 Station St, Riddells Creek, VIC, 3431, Australia
                Article
                1471-2431-12-154
                10.1186/1471-2431-12-154
                3480952
                22998654
                9e26877e-2db6-43f9-b8f3-67bb496489f6
                Copyright ©2012 Leask et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 March 2012
                : 4 September 2012
                Categories
                Correspondence

                Pediatrics
                Pediatrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article