Provider-parent Communication When Discussing Vaccines: A Systematic Review.

PROBLEM: Expert literature on communication practices with vaccine hesitant parents posits that a non-confrontational/participatory discussion with the parent would be the best approach to improve compliance. A prior literature review found limited evidence to recommend any particular face to face intervention other than to incorporate communication about vaccination effectiveness during an encounter. Hence, a systematic review was performed in an attempt to determine the most efficacious communication practices to use with parents with vaccination concerns. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative and qualitative studies written in English that assessed the communication framework/style of the provider-parent interaction and studies where provider communication was listed as an intervention were reviewed. SAMPLE: Nine articles were included in the sample. RESULTS: The majority of the studies were descriptive and qualitative in nature with only one randomized controlled trial. Five of the 9 studies utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design. Two main themes included message types recommended or given by the provider and message types that were requested by the parent. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings showed that there is currently not enough information to definitively state the type of provider-parent communication style that should be employed to affect the parents' vaccination viewpoint. However, recurring themes of trust in the provider and a personalized provider-parent interaction were evident, which promotes a participatory type of interaction. IMPLICATIONS: The literature indirectly supports providers engaging with vaccine hesitant parents in a more individualized, participatory format, though higher quality and more rigorous studies that focus specifically on provider-parent communication practices are needed.

Implementing vaccine hesitancy screening for targeted education.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little research has been performed investigating the effect of using a vaccine hesitancy (VH) screening tool to address specific vaccination concerns. The purpose of this study was to determine whether using a VH screening tool in conjunction with provider discussions addressing parental concerns affected the parental intent to vaccinate (ITV). METHODS: This study used a pretest/posttest design to measure and categorize VH and ITV. CONCLUSIONS: The total sample size was 89. Differences between previsit and postvisit questionnaires showed mean responses for questions that measured specific VH categories had slight increases in the level of VH. A regression analysis was conducted to predict the postvisit ITV. Questions measuring parental trust in the provider, beliefs on vaccine efficacy, and beliefs about the prevalence of vaccine preventable disease (VPD) in the community predicted 72% of the postvisit ITV responses. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The utilization of a VH screening tool used in conjunction with provider education in an educated and mildly VH population did not positively affect the level of VH or the parental ITV. Additional research should investigate the role of parental trust in the provider, beliefs on vaccine efficacy, and the prevalence of VPD in the community affect parental ITV.

Evaluation of a rapid quantitative diagnostic test for adenovirus type 4.

Acute respiratory disease (ARD) due to adenoviruses is a reemerging disease in military recruits. It is a challenge for clinicians to accurately diagnose this disease and to appropriately treat affected individuals. This study investigated the utility of a quantitative, rapid-cycle, real-time fluorogenic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique for detecting adenovirus type 4 (Ad4) in a clinical setting. Throat swab specimens and clinical data were collected from US Army basic trainees hospitalized with ARD at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. A total of 140 throat swab specimens were collected from 83 subjects. Rapid PCR results (obtained in <2 h) had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 100%, compared with viral culture. There was no difference, qualitative or quantitative, between frozen and fresh samples for PCR detection of Ad4. Individuals with test results positive for Ad4 were hospitalized longer than were individuals with negative test results. Higher virus loads at hospital admission corresponded to longer lengths of stay for Ad4-positive subjects.