The experience of traumatic events, psychological distress, and social support: links to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and trends with age in a group of older Australians.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is important to reduce disease-associated morbidity and mortality in an ageing global population. While older adults are more likely than younger adults to accept vaccines, some remain hesitant. We sought to understand how traumatic events, psychological distress and social support contribute to older adults' intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and whether these experiences change with age. METHODS: We analysed survey data collected as part of the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study in a population of Australian adults aged 60 years and over. Data were derived from the COVID Insights study; a series of supplementary surveys about how participants experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Higher intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with greater social support (adjusted odds ratio (aOR):1.08; 95%CI:1.06-1.11; p <.001) while lower intention was associated with personally experiencing a serious illness, injury or assault in the last 12 months (aOR:0.79; 95% CI:0.64-0.98; p =.03). Social support and the experience of traumatic events increased significantly with age, while psychological distress decreased. CONCLUSIONS: There may be factors beyond disease-associated risks that play a role in vaccine acceptance with age. Older Australians on the younger end of the age spectrum may have specific needs to address their hesitancy that may be overlooked.

Evidence gaps and challenges in maintaining and increasing vaccine uptake: A Delphi survey with Australian stakeholders.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is crucial for preventing and managing infectious diseases. In the context of the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic landscape, this paper examines the perceptions of immunisation implementers and policymakers to uncover the challenges and evidence gaps in routine immunisation efforts. METHODS: We conducted an online two-round modified Delphi survey with immunisation experts, senior public servants, policymakers, policy advisory groups, and representatives from peak bodies from across Australia. We asked respondents to outline what they see as the greatest challenges to increasing and maintaining uptake of recommended vaccines in Australia; the most difficult aspects of their work in vaccination; the largest evidence gaps in vaccine uptake; and the kinds of social and behavioural research they would like to see prioritised. RESULTS: The two most important challenges for increasing and maintaining vaccine uptake were effectively communicating the benefits of vaccines to parents and the public and ensuring accessible and affordable vaccination services. Participants strongly agreed that 'communication about the importance of vaccination' was the most difficult aspect of their work. Consistently important was the need to better engage specific population groups, such as culturally and linguistically diverse people, pregnant people, at risk cohorts, and health care providers. Social and behavioural research about 'how to effectively address hesitancy' was ranked highly among participants. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this project help provide an understanding of the behavioural, social, ethical, and policy knowledge needs for immunisation policy and implementation in Australia. To respond to vaccine challenges, increase coverage and build public trust in vaccination, policymakers and governments should incorporate social research into vaccination programmes. SO WHAT?: Australia is preparing to launch a Centre for Disease Control. This study demonstrates the importance of integrating social, behavioural, ethical, and policy research into the fabric of this new enterprise. It underlines the need to capacity-build a workforce able to deliver high-quality research in these areas, address the needs of immunisation implementers and policymakers, and achieve good outcomes for Australians.

Childhood vaccine refusal and what to do about it: a systematic review of the ethical literature.

BACKGROUND: Parental refusal of routine childhood vaccination remains an ethically contested area. This systematic review sought to explore and characterise the normative arguments made about parental refusal of routine vaccination, with the aim of providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of current normative literature. METHODS: Nine databases covering health and ethics research were searched, and 121 publications identified for the period Jan 1998 to Mar 2022. For articles, source journals were categorised according to Australian Standard Field of Research codes, and normative content was analysed using a framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Most of the articles were published in biomedical journals (34%), bioethics journals (21%), and journals that carry both classifications (20%). Two central questions dominated the literature: (1) Whether vaccine refusal is justifiable (which we labelled 'refusal arguments'); and (2) Whether strategies for dealing with those who reject vaccines are justifiable ('response arguments'). Refusal arguments relied on principlism, religious frameworks, the rights and obligations of parents, the rights of children, the medico-legal best interests of the child standard, and the potential to cause harm to others. Response arguments were broadly divided into arguments about policy, arguments about how individual physicians should practice regarding vaccine rejectors, and both legal precedents and ethical arguments for vaccinating children against a parent's will. Policy arguments considered the normative significance of coercion, non-medical or conscientious objections, and possible reciprocal social efforts to offset vaccine refusal. Individual physician practice arguments covered nudging and coercive practices, patient dismissal, and the ethical and professional obligations of physicians. Most of the legal precedents discussed were from the American setting, with some from the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive picture of the scope and substance of normative arguments about vaccine refusal and responses to vaccine refusal. It can serve as a platform for future research to extend the current normative literature, better understand the role of cultural context in normative judgements about vaccination, and more comprehensively translate the nuance of ethical arguments into practice and policy.

Association between traumatic life events and vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional Australian study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify associations between the experience of traumatic life events and vaccination intention to inform whether trauma-affected individuals require targeted interventions when addressing vaccine hesitancy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey to identify whether direct or indirect exposure to various traumatic life events and the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in an Australian sample. METHODS: A national online questionnaire was administered to a representative sample of 1050 Australian adults in September 2021. RESULTS: Lower willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with direct experience of a fire or explosion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.78; P = 0.006), direct experience of severe human suffering (aOR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.21-0.71; P = 0.002) and screening positive for PTSD symptoms (aOR:0.52; 95% CI: 0.33-0.82; P = 0.005). Conversely, higher willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with indirect exposure to severe human suffering (aOR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.21-3.22; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the experience of traumatic events and the presence of PTSD symptoms can contribute to vaccination decisions. Our work adds to the growing recognition of the need to effectively mediate the influence of traumatic experiences on encounters within the medical setting and supports the importance of addressing the needs of trauma-affected individuals in their vaccination experiences.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women and the reasons for hesitancy: A multi-centre cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: On 9 June 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommended that pregnant women receive Comirnaty (Pfizer) messenger RNA vaccine at any stage of pregnancy. AIM: This multi-centre study aimed to assess vaccine acceptance, reasons for hesitancy and determine if differences exist between health districts, to inform future policy strategies for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey (developed based on the World Health Organization Behavioural and Social Drivers survey and modified for the pregnant population) was administered to a sample population of pregnant women attending antenatal clinics at two metropolitan hospitals (Westmead and Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH)) in New South Wales between 15 September 2021 and 22 October 2021. RESULTS: There were 287 pregnant women surveyed (Westmead 198 (69%), RNSH 66 (23%), no site 23 (8%)). There was a significantly lower Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas score (5.66 vs 9.45, P = 0.001), fewer women born in Australia (37% vs 53%, P = 0.02) and higher number of children (0.77 vs 0.41, P = 0.01) among Westmead respondents. There was lower vaccination uptake (68% vs 86%, P = 0.01) and willingness to receive vaccine (68% vs 88% P = 0.01) at Westmead compared to RNSH. There was an increased proportion of respondents who were concerned that the vaccine could cause harm to the unborn baby at Westmead (38% vs 11%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Along with healthcare provider recommendation for vaccination in pregnancy, materials should be targeted to specific safety concerns of pregnant women.

COVID-19 testing decisions and behaviours in two Australian cities.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: High levels of testing are crucial for minimising the spread of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate what prevents people from getting a COVID-19 test when they are experiencing respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 purposively sampled adults between 20 November 2020 and 3 March 2021 in two capital cities of Australia and analysed thematically. The analysis included people who reported having respiratory symptoms but who did not undergo a COVID-19 test. RESULTS: Participants appraised risks of having COVID-19, of infecting others or being infected whilst attending a testing site. They often weighed these appraisals against practical considerations of knowing where and how to get tested, inconvenience or financial loss. CONCLUSIONS: Clear public health messages communicating the importance of testing, even when symptoms are minor, may improve testing rates. Increasing the accessibility of testing centres, such as having them at transport hubs is important, as is providing adequate information about testing locations and queue lengths. SO WHAT?: The findings of our study suggest that more needs to be done to encourage people to get tested for COVID-19, especially when symptoms are minor. Clear communication about the importance of testing, along with easily accessible testing clinics, and financial support for those concerned about financial impacts may improve testing rates.

'Get your own house in order': Qualitative dialogue groups with nonvaccinating parents on how measles outbreaks in their community should be managed.

OBJECTIVE: Communities with high levels of vaccine rejection present unique challenges to vaccine-preventable disease outbreak management. We sought perspectives of nonvaccinating parents to inform public health responses in such communities. METHODS: Nineteen purposively sampled nonvaccinating Australian parents participated in one of seven online dialogue groups. We asked what they thought parents, school principals and public health professionals should do in a hypothetical school measles outbreak and used a framework approach to data analysis. RESULTS: Parents' views were grounded in strong beliefs in parental responsibility and the belief that vaccines are not effective, thus unvaccinated children do not therefore pose a threat. They then reasoned that the forced exclusion of unvaccinated children from school in a measles outbreak was disproportionate to the risk they pose, and their child's right to education should not be overridden. Nonvaccinating parents judged that all parents should keep sick children at home regardless of disease or vaccination status; that school principals should communicate directly with parents and avoid using social media; that public health professionals should provide information to parents so they can decide for themselves about excluding their children from school; that public health responses should avoid accidental identification of unvaccinated children and that mainstream media should be avoided as a communication tool. CONCLUSION: Nonvaccinating parents do not always agree with current Australian approaches to measles outbreak management. Their perspectives can inform approaches to outbreak responses in communities with high levels of vaccine rejection. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate on study design in its early phases. Individual conversations were used deliberately as we felt the group advisory situation may have felt less safe for nonvaccinating parents, given the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic.

Public health practitioner perspectives on dealing with measles outbreaks if high anti-vaccination sentiment is present.

BACKGROUND: Communities with low vaccination rates are at greater risk during outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. Most Australian parents support vaccines, but some refuse and are often judged harshly by their community, especially during an outbreak. We sought the perspectives of Australian public health experts on the key issues faced when managing a measles outbreak in an area with high anti-vaccination sentiment. METHODS: A measles outbreak scenario formed the basis of a 3-round modified Delphi process to identify key practitioner concerns in relation to parents/carers who don't follow the recommended vaccination schedule. We surveyed a range of professionals in the field: policymakers, infectious disease experts, immunisation program staff, and others involved in delivering childhood vaccinations, to identify key priorities when responding to an outbreak in a community with low vaccination coverage. RESULTS: Findings indicate that responses to measles outbreaks in communities with high anti-vaccination sentiment are motivated by concerns about the potential for a much larger outbreak event. The highest operational priority is to isolate infected children. The two most highly ranked practical issues are mistrust from non-vaccinating members of the local region and combatting misinformation about vaccines. Trying to change minds of such individuals is not a priority during an outbreak, nor is vaccinating their children. Using media and social media to provide information about the outbreak and measures the public can take to limit the spread of the disease was a focus. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a deeper understanding of the challenges faced during an outbreak and priorities for communicating with communities where there is a high level of anti-vaccination sentiment. In the context of a global pandemic, the results of this study also have implications for managing public health responses to community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as COVID-19 vaccines becomes widely available.

How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination misinformation is associated with serious public health consequences, such as a decrease in vaccination rates and a risk of disease outbreaks. Although social media offers organisations promoting vaccination unparalleled opportunities to promote evidence and counterbalance misinformation, we know relatively little about their internal workings. The aim of this paper is to explore the strategies, perspectives and experiences of communicators working within such organisations as they promote vaccination and respond to misinformation on social media. METHODS: Using qualitative methods, we purposively sampled 21 participants responsible for routine social media activity and strategy from Australian organisations actively promoting vaccination on social media, including government health departments, local health services, advocacy groups, professional associations and technical/scientific organisations. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their perspectives and practices. Applying Risk Communication principles as a lens, we used Framework Analysis to explore the data both inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Organisations promoting vaccination face multiple challenges on social media, including misinformation, anti-science sentiment, a complex vaccination narrative and anti-vaccine activists. They developed a range of sophisticated strategies in response, including communicating with openness in an evidence-informed way; creating safe spaces to encourage audience dialogue; fostering community partnerships; and countering misinformation with care. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that communicators consider directly countering misinformation because of the potential influence on their silent audience, i.e. those observing but not openly commenting, liking or sharing posts. Refutations should be straightforward, succinct and avoid emphasizing misinformation. Communicators should consider pairing scientific evidence with stories that speak to audience beliefs and values. Finally, organisations could enhance vaccine promotion and their own credibility on social media by forming strong links with organisations sharing similar values and goals.

Understanding pregnant women's attitudes and behavior toward influenza and pertussis vaccination.

Internationally, pregnant and postpartum women have been the focus of influenza and pertussis immunization campaigns, with differing levels of vaccine acceptance. We used semistructured interviews to explore pregnant women's perspectives on influenza vaccination during pregnancy and postpartum pertussis vaccination. Many women saw pregnancy as a busy time filled with advice on what they "should" and "should not" do to ensure the health of their fetus, and vaccinating themselves was regarded as just one of these tasks needing consideration. Women were more concerned about potential risks to their infants' health before their own. They saw influenza as a disease affecting the mother, whereas they viewed pertussis as a threat to the baby and therefore comparatively more risky. They were thus more likely to intend to vaccinate against pertussis to protect their infant. Framing of vaccination information toward protection of the baby might help increase vaccine uptake among pregnant women.

Influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a qualitative study of the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of general practitioners in Central and South-Western Sydney.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women have an increased risk of influenza complications. Influenza vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective, however coverage in Australia is less than 40%. Pregnant women who receive a recommendation for influenza vaccination from a health care provider are more likely to receive it, however the perspectives of Australian general practitioners has not previously been reported. The aim of the study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of general practitioners practicing in South-Western Sydney, Australia towards influenza vaccination during pregnancy. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted, with semi-structured interviews completed with seventeen general practitioners in October 2012. A thematic analysis was undertaken by four researchers, and transcripts were analysed using N-Vivo software according to agreed codes. RESULTS: One-third of the general practitioners interviewed did not consider influenza during pregnancy to be a serious risk for the mother or the baby. The majority of the general practitioners were aware of the government recommendations for influenza vaccination during pregnancy, but few general practitioners were confident of their knowledge about the vaccine and most felt they needed more information. More than half the general practitioners had significant concerns about the safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Their practices in the provision of the vaccine were related to their perception of risk of influenza during pregnancy and their confidence about the safety of the vaccine. While two-thirds reported that they are recommending influenza vaccination to their pregnant patients, many were adopting principles of patient-informed choice in their approach and encouraged women to decide for themselves whether they would receive the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners have varied knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about influenza vaccination during pregnancy, which influence their practices. Addressing these could have a significant impact on improving vaccine uptake during pregnancy.

Evaluating Pilot Implementation of 'PenCS Flu Topbar' App in Medical Practices to Improve National Immunisation Program-Funded Seasonal Influenza Vaccination in Central Queensland, Australia.

BACKGROUND: The 'PenCS Flu Topbar' app was deployed in Central Queensland (CQ), Australia, medical practices through a pilot programme in March 2021. METHODS: We evaluated the app's user experience and examined whether the introduction of 'PenCS Flu Topbar' in medical practices could improve the coverage of NIP-funded influenza vaccinations. We conducted a mixed-method study including a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with key end-users and a quantitative analysis of influenza vaccine administrative data. RESULTS: 'PenCS Flu Topbar' app users reported positive experiences identifying patients eligible for NIP-funded seasonal influenza vaccination. A total of 3606 NIP-funded influenza vaccinations was administered in the eight intervention practices, 14% higher than the eight control practices. NIP-funded vaccination coverage within practices was significantly higher in the intervention practices (31.2%) than in the control practices (27.3%) (absolute difference: 3.9%; 95% CI: 2.9%-5.0%; p < 0.001). The coverage was substantially higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged more than 6 months, pregnant women and children aged 6 months to less than 5 years for the practices where the app was introduced when compared to control practices: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 2.4 (95% CI: 1.8-3.2), IRR 2.7 (95% CI: 1.8-4.2) and IRR 2.3 (1.8-2.9) times higher, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation indicated that the 'PenCS Flu Topbar' app is useful for identifying the patients eligible for NIP-funded influenza vaccination and is likely to increase NIP-funded influenza vaccine coverage in the eligible populations. Future impact evaluation including a greater number of practices and a wider geographical area is essential.

Uptake of influenza vaccine by pregnant women: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in New South Wales, and factors associated with vaccine uptake during pregnancy. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative self-administered survey of pregnant women, using a non-random, stratified sample from antenatal clinics at three demographically diverse hospitals in NSW during the influenza season of 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported influenza vaccine uptake while pregnant; and attitudes, barriers and facilitators to vaccine acceptance during pregnancy. RESULTS: Of 939 women approached, 815 participated (87%). Influenza vaccine uptake in pregnant women was 27%. Women who had received a recommendation to have the vaccine were 20.0 times (95% CI, 10.9-36.9) more likely to have been vaccinated. Forty-two per cent recalled receiving a recommendation to be vaccinated. Other factors associated with vaccination were study site, perceived infection severity, overall feelings toward vaccination during pregnancy, vaccine accessibility, and willingness to take up the vaccine if recommended. Concern about the baby's safety was negatively associated with vaccination (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9), but 68% (95% CI, 63%-71%) of women who expressed concern agreed they would have the vaccine if their health care professional recommended it. CONCLUSION: Recommendation from a health care provider is strongly associated with influenza vaccine uptake among pregnant women and can overcome their concerns about safety, but less than half the women surveyed reported receiving such a recommendation. Educational material targeting pregnant women and professional education and support for antenatal health care providers are needed to increase awareness and recommendation.

Willingness to receive a vaccine is influenced by adverse events following immunisation experienced by others.

An adverse event following immunization (AEFI) can have consequences for an individual's future decision making and may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. AEFIs vary in severity and can be experienced directly (by an individual themselves) or indirectly (through witnessed or recounted events). We sought to measure the prevalence of specific AEFIs and understand which AEFIs have the greatest associations with reduced willingness to receive a vaccine and how injection anxiety may moderate the relationship. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements in a sample of adults aged 18 years and over in Australia. Nineteen percent of the 1050 respondents reported experiencing an AEFI that they found stressful. Those who experienced an AEFI reported significantly higher levels of injection anxiety than those who did not. Within the group who reported experiencing an AEFI, respondents were significantly less likely to be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if they reported: indirect exposure to an uncommon/rare AEFI compared with other AEFIs (aOR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.87); indirect exposure to a scientifically unsupported AEFI compared with other AEFIs (aOR:0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57). Direct exposure to an AEFI was not associated with willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. For those who reported experiencing an AEFI, the odds of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine decreased significantly with an increase in injection anxiety (aOR:0.94; 95% CI: 0.9-0.98). Our results suggest that more is needed to mitigate the consequences of AEFIs on vaccine willingness. Empathically acknowledging at a community level, the experience of both real and perceived AEFIs and incorporating accounts of positive vaccination experiences in vaccine hesitancy interventions may be useful.

Communication Interventions and Assessment of Drivers for Hendra Virus Vaccination Uptake.

Hendra virus disease (HeVD) is an emerging zoonosis in Australia, resulting from the transmission of Hendra virus (HeV) to horses from Pteropus bats. Vaccine uptake for horses is low despite the high case fatality rate of HeVD in both horses and people. We reviewed evidence-based communication interventions to promote and improve HeV vaccine uptake for horses by horse owners and conducted a preliminary evaluation of potential drivers for HeV vaccine uptake using the Behavioural and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) framework developed by the World Health Organization. Six records were eligible for review following a comprehensive search and review strategy of peer-reviewed literature, but evidence-based communication interventions to promote and improve HeV vaccine uptake for horses were lacking. An evaluation of potential drivers for HeV vaccine uptake using the BeSD framework indicated that horse owners' perceptions, beliefs, social processes, and practical issues are similar to those experienced by parents making decisions about childhood vaccines, although the overall motivation to vaccinate is lower amongst horse owners. Some aspects of HeV vaccine uptake are not accounted for in the BeSD framework (for example, alternative mitigation strategies such as covered feeding stations or the zoonotic risk of HeV). Overall, problems associated with HeV vaccine uptake appear well-documented. We, therefore, propose to move from a problems-focused to a solutions-focused approach to reduce the risk of HeV for humans and horses. Following our findings, we suggest that the BeSD framework could be modified and used to develop and evaluate communication interventions to promote and improve HeV vaccine uptake by horse owners, which could have a global application to promote vaccine uptake for other zoonotic diseases in animals, such as rabies.

Traumatic Events and Vaccination Decisions: A Systematic Review.

Despite the apparent relationship between past experiences and subsequent vaccination decisions, the role of traumatic events has been overlooked when understanding vaccination intention and behaviour. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize what is known about the relationship between traumatic events and subsequent vaccination decisions. MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINHAL electronic databases were searched, and 1551 articles were screened for eligibility. Of the 52 articles included in full-text assessment, five met the eligibility criteria. Findings suggest that the experience of trauma is associated with individual vaccination decisions. Social and practical factors related to both trauma and vaccination may mediate this relationship. As this is a relatively new field of inquiry, future research may help to clarify the nuances of the relationship. This review finds that the experience of psychological trauma is associated with vaccination intention and behaviour and points to the potential importance of a trauma-informed approach to vaccination interventions during the current global effort to achieve high COVID-19 vaccine coverage.

Qualitative assessment of caregiver experiences when navigating childhood immunisation in urban communities in Sierra Leone.

OBJECTIVE: To gain in-depth understanding of the caregiver experience when navigating urban immunisation services for their children. DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative assessment comprising 16 in-depth interviews using an interpretative phenomenology approach. SETTING: Caregivers were purposively recruited from slums (n=8) and other urban communities (n=8) in the capital city of Sierra Leone. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers of children ages 6-36 months old who were fully vaccinated (n=8) or undervaccinated (n=8). RESULTS: Emotional enablers of vaccination were evident in caregivers' sense of parental obligation to their children while also anticipating reciprocal benefits in children's ability to take care of their parents later in life. Practical enablers were found in the diversity of immunisation reminders, information access, information trust, getting fathers more involved, positive experiences with health workers and postvaccination information sharing in the community. Underlying barriers to childhood vaccination were due to practical constraints such as overcrowding and long waiting times at the clinic, feeling disrespected by health workers, expecting to give money to health workers for free services and fear of serious vaccine side effects. To improve vaccination outcomes, caregivers desired more convenient and positive clinic experiences and deeper community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Health system interventions, community engagement and vaccination outreach need to be tailored for urban settings. Vaccine communication efforts may resonate more strongly with caregivers when vaccination is framed both around parental responsibilities to do the right thing for the child and the future benefits to the parent.