Exploring parents' views of the use of narratives to promote childhood vaccination online.

BACKGROUND: Negative information about vaccines that spreads online may contribute to parents' vaccine hesitancy or refusal. Studies have shown that false claims about vaccines that use emotive personal narratives are more likely to be shared and engaged with on social media than factual evidence-based public health messages. The aim of this study was to explore parents' views regarding the use of positive narratives to promote childhood vaccination. METHODS: We identified three ∼4-minute video narratives from social media that counter frequent parental concerns about childhood vaccination: parents and informed decision-making (online misinformation about vaccines); a paediatrician's clinical experience with vaccine-preventable diseases (prevention of still existing diseases); and a mother's experience with vaccine-preventable disease (risks of the disease). Focus group discussions were held with parents of children aged 0 to 5 years to assess their views on these three narratives and their general opinion on the use of narratives as a vaccine promotion intervention. RESULTS: Four focus groups discussions were virtually held with 15 parents in December 2021. In general, parents trusted both health care provider's and parent's narratives, but participants identified more with stories having a parent as the main character. Both narratives featuring personal stories with vaccine-preventable diseases were preferred by parents, while the story about informed decision-making was perceived as less influential. Parents expressed the need for reliable and nuanced information about vaccines and diseases and felt that a short video format featuring a story was an efficient vaccine promotion intervention. However, many mentioned that they generally are not watching such videos while navigating the Web. CONCLUSION: While vaccine-critical stories are widely shared online, evidence on how best public health could counter these messages remains scarce. The use of narratives to promote vaccination was well-perceived by parents. Future studies are needed to assess reach and impact of such an intervention.

Vaccination barriers and drivers in Romania: a focused ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: In 2016-18, a large measles outbreak occurred in Romania identified by pockets of sub-optimally vaccinated population groups in the country. The aim of the current study was to gain insight into barriers and drivers from the experience of measles vaccination from the perspectives of caregivers and their providers. METHODS: Data were collected by non-participant observation of vaccination consultations and individual interviews with health workers and caregivers in eight Romanian clinics with high or low measles vaccination uptake. Romanian stakeholders were involved in all steps of the study. The findings of this study were discussed during a workshop with key stakeholders. RESULTS: Over 400 h of observation and 161 interviews were conducted. A clear difference was found between clinics with high and low measles vaccination uptake which indicates that being aware of and following recommended practices for both vaccination service delivery and conveying vaccine recommendations to caregivers may have an impact on vaccine uptake. Barriers identified were related to shortcomings in following recommended practices for vaccination consultations by health workers (e.g. correctly assessing contraindications or providing enough information to allow an informed decision). These observations were largely confirmed in interviews with caregivers and revealed significant knowledge gaps. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of key barriers provided an opportunity to design specific interventions to improve vaccination service delivery (e.g. mobile vaccination clinics, use of an electronic vaccination registry system for scheduling of appointments) and build capacity among health workers (e.g. guidance and supporting materials and training programmes).

Suitable but requiring support: How the midwifery model of care offers opportunities to counsel the vaccine hesitant pregnant population.

Uptake of vaccination during pregnancy in Canada is lower than comparator countries. A recommendation from a trusted perinatal healthcare provider is a key opportunity to promote vaccine uptake and improve confidence. This study aims to identify barriers and opportunities to vaccination in midwifery care. Seventeen semi-structured telephone interviews with practicing midwives, educators and public health professionals with immunization training experiences were conducted. Documents pertaining to the midwifery profession (approx. 50) were reviewed. Inductive thematic analysis identified logistical, interprofessional, and information barriers preventing Canadian midwives from administering vaccines and counseling clients about vaccination, as well as opportunities to address each barrier. Key interventions at the level of logistics, training, and client information materials would help address barriers to the integration of midwives into the provision and recommendation of vaccines in perinatal care across Canada.

Do intentions lead to action? Results of a longitudinal study assessing determinants of Tdap vaccine uptake during pregnancy in Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, vaccination against pertussis (Tdap) during pregnancy has been recommended since 2018, with suboptimal uptake. We aimed to assess the determinants of intention and uptake of Tdap vaccine among pregnant women in Quebec. METHODS: Participants (< 21 weeks of pregnancy) were recruited in four Quebec regions. Two online surveys were administered during pregnancy (< 21 weeks and > 35 weeks). One measured vaccination intention and the other assessed the actual decision. Questionnaires were informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). We used logistic multivariate analysis to identify determinants of Tdap vaccination uptake during pregnancy using responses to both questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 741 women answered the first survey and 568 (76.7%), the second survey. In the first survey most participants intended to receive the Tdap vaccine during their pregnancy (76.3%) and in the second survey, 82.4% reported having been vaccinated against Tdap during their pregnancy. In multivariate analysis, the main determinants of vaccine uptake were: a recommendation from a healthcare provider (OR = 7.6), vaccine intention (OR = 6.12), social norms (or thinking that most pregnant women will be vaccinated (OR = 3.81), recruitment site (OR = 3.61 for General Family Medicine unit) perceived behavioral control (or low perceived barriers to access vaccination services, (OR = 2.32) and anticipated feeling of guilt if not vaccinated (OR = 2.13). Safety concerns were the main reason for not intending or not receiving the vaccine during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: We observed high vaccine acceptance and uptake of pertussis vaccine in pregnancy. The core components of the TPB (intention, social norms and perceived behavioral control) were all predictors of vaccine uptake, but our multivariate analysis also showed that other determinants were influential: being sufficiently informed about Tdap vaccination, not having vaccine safety concerns, and anticipated regret if unvaccinated. To ensure high vaccine acceptance and uptake in pregnancy, strong recommendations by trusted healthcare providers and ease of access to vaccination services remain instrumental.

An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools. METHODS: We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved. CONCLUSIONS: The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.

User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: When designing and developing patient decision aids, guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders. There are myriad ways to do this. We aimed to describe how such involvement occurs by synthesizing reports of patient decision aid design and development within a user-centered design framework and to provide context by synthesizing reports of user-centered design applied to other personal health tools. METHODS: We included articles describing at least one development step of 1) a patient decision aid, 2) user- or human-centered design of another personal health tool, or 3) evaluation of these. We organized data within a user-centered design framework comprising 3 elements in iterative cycles: understanding users, developing/refining prototype, and observing users. RESULTS: We included 607 articles describing 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 other personal health tool projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least 1 step for understanding users, 35% in at least 1 step for developing/refining the prototype, and 84% in at least 1 step for observing users' interaction with the prototype. In comparison, other personal health tool projects reported 91%, 49%, and 92%, respectively. A total of 74% of patient decision aid projects and 92% of other personal health tool projects reported iterative processes, both with a median of 3 iterative cycles. Preliminary evaluations such as usability or feasibility testing were reported in 66% of patient decision aid projects and 89% of other personal health tool projects. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing design and development practices, we offer evidence-based portraits of user involvement. Those wishing to further align patient decision aid design and development with user-centered design methods could involve users earlier, design and develop iteratively, and report processes in greater detail.

Perinatal health care providers' approaches to recommending and providing pertussis vaccination in pregnancy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada recommended a single dose of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and reduced acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine in every pregnancy. To understand how perinatal health care providers in Canada are translating recent recommendations for universal antenatal Tdap vaccine into routine clinical practice, we examined health care providers' perceptions of what influences their ability to recommend and provide Tdap vaccine consistently to pregnant women. METHODS: Between June 2018 and July 2019, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews with perinatal health care providers (nurses, midwives, family physicians and obstetricians) from 5 provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia) representing diverse educational experiences, practice settings and models of care. We analyzed the data using interpretive description. RESULTS: We interviewed 44 perinatal health care providers (13 family physicians, 12 midwives, 10 obstetricians and 9 nurses) practising in a variety of settings. Health care providers' ability to recommend and provide antenatal Tdap vaccine was strongly influenced by structural constraints in the Canadian perinatal health care system. The participants' clinical training varied, which resulted in different knowledge and practices. Participants felt hindered by a lack of lay information resources. Consistent and convenient vaccine access was perceived to be key to promoting confidence and encouraging uptake, yet antenatal Tdap vaccine was not easily accessible for all women. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that Canada's fragmented health care model has a detrimental effect on health care providers' ability to recommend and ensure access to antenatal Tdap vaccine. Lessons from this study are pertinent to the implementation of successful pertussis vaccine programs and future pregnancy vaccination initiatives.

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations. METHODS: To describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Out of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18-7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23-9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users' needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities. CONCLUSIONS: There are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

One-Sided Social Media Comments Influenced Opinions And Intentions About Home Birth: An Experimental Study.

As people increasingly turn to social media to access and create health evidence, the greater availability of data and information ought to help more people make evidence-informed health decisions that align with what matters to them. However, questions remain as to whether people can be swayed in favor of or against options by polarized social media, particularly in the case of controversial topics. We created a composite mock news article about home birth from six real news articles and randomly assigned participants in an online study to view comments posted about the original six articles. We found that exposure to one-sided social media comments with one-sided opinions influenced participants' opinions of the health topic regardless of their reported level of previous knowledge, especially when comments contained personal stories. Comments representing a breadth of views did not influence opinions, which suggests that while exposure to one-sided comments may bias opinions, exposure to balanced comments may avoid such bias.