RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Research on immigrant and refugee vaccination uptake in Canada shows that immunization decisions vary by vaccine type, location, age and migration status. Despite their diversity, these studies often treat immigrant and refugee populations as a single group relative to other Canadians. In this comparative study, we explored how previous risk communication and immunization experiences influence immunization decisions by immigrant and refugee women from three communities across Canada. METHODS: Participants included women from the Punjabi immigrant community located in Surrey and Abbotsford, British Columbia (n = 36), the Nigerian immigrant community located in Winnipeg, Manitoba (n = 43), and the Congolese refugee community in Edmonton, Alberta (n = 18). Using focus groups guided by focused ethnography methodology, we sought to understand immunization experiences in Canada and before arrival, and what information sources influenced the immunization decision-making process by the women in the three communities. RESULTS: Participants had differing past experiences in Canada and before their arrival that influenced how they used information in their vaccination decisions. Clear vaccination communications and dialogue with Canadian health care providers increased trust in Canadian health care and the likelihood of vaccine uptake. By contrast, weak vaccine recommendations and antivaccination information in the community prompted participants to decline future vaccines. CONCLUSION: Given our participants' different communication preferences and needs, we argue that a one-size-fits-all communication approach is inappropriate for immigrant and refugee populations. Instead, multi-pronged communication strategies are required to reach participants and respond to previous experiences and information that may lead to vaccination hesitancy.