Feasibility and acceptability of the multi-component P3-MumBubVax antenatal intervention to promote maternal and childhood vaccination: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is a critical time for vaccine decision-making, but coverage remains suboptimal for maternal influenza (45-60%) and pertussis vaccination (65-80%) in Australia. The multi-component P3-MumBubVax intervention has been designed for Australian midwives to optimise antenatal vaccine discussions and improve maternal and childhood vaccine uptake. A pilot study was conducted to assess intervention feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: P3-MumBubVax includes components at three levels: 1. Practice ('vaccine champions'; stickers to prompt and record vaccine discussions/delivery); 2. Provider (website with vaccine communication training; learning exercise; fact sheets; links to child vaccination resources); 3. Parent (SMS reminders; website; fact sheets). Midwives and pregnant women 18-22 weeks gestation were recruited at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne. Post-intervention online surveys assessed intervention feasibility, implementation, acceptability and impact on vaccine uptake. RESULTS: Twenty-five midwives and 62 pregnant women were recruited and 19/25 midwives completed training. Surveys were returned by 18/25 midwives and 56/62 women. 14/18 midwives reported using the sticker prompts, 10/18 reported using or referring to the website, and 11/18 reported using the fact sheets. 48/56 pregnant women (86%) reported discussing influenza and 46/56 (82%) discussed pertussis vaccines with their midwives. These conversations were reported to be short (1-3 min) for 48/56 women (87%). All midwives were satisfied with the intervention and 17/18 reported feeling more confident discussing vaccines following the intervention. Women were very satisfied with SMS content (50/56; 94%) and timing (49/55; 89%), and with their vaccine discussions in general (34/56; 63%). However, 16/54 (30%) wanted more discussion about childhood vaccines. Self-reported maternal vaccine uptake was 82% (45/55) and 93% (51/55) for influenza and pertussis (baseline 2017-2018: 43% influenza, 60% pertussis) and 96% (50/52) of infants were fully vaccinated at 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: The P3-MumBubVax intervention is feasible and acceptable in the Australian public antenatal setting. Further evaluation is required to determine effectiveness.

Vaccine discussions in pregnancy: interviews with midwives to inform design of an intervention to promote uptake of maternal and childhood vaccines.

Presumptive and Motivational Interviewing communication styles have successfully promoted childhood and adolescent vaccination to parents, but less is known about effective communication approaches during pregnancy to promote maternal vaccination and childhood vaccines. In Australian public antenatal settings, midwives provide a substantial proportion of care and are highly accessed and trusted sources of vaccine information for expectant parents. However, there are no evidence-based interventions incorporating communication strategies and resources for midwives to optimize discussions and promote acceptance of maternal and childhood vaccines. This study aimed to gather qualitative data from midwives to inform the design of a feasible and acceptable vaccine communication intervention package building on an evidence-based model utilized with US obstetricians. We explored midwives' attitudes and values regarding maternal and childhood vaccination, their perceived role in vaccine advocacy and delivery, and barriers and enablers to implementation of a potential communication intervention. We recruited 12 midwives for semi-structured interviews at two Australian tertiary public hospitals (one with antenatal vaccines onsite, one without). Interviews were analyzed using thematic template analysis. Midwives supported vaccination but expressed varied views regarding its centrality to their role. Most reported receiving minimal or no training on vaccine communication. Their communication practices focused primarily on vaccine information provision rather than persuasion, although some midwives shared personal views and actively encouraged vaccination. More vaccine and communication training and resources were requested. Findings highlight the need for communication tools that align with midwifery standards for practice to support midwives to address parents' questions and concerns about maternal and childhood vaccines.

Is immunisation education in midwifery degrees adequate?

Maternal and childhood vaccination decisions begin during pregnancy, and midwives are an important information resource. Their role is set to increase with the expansion of maternal immunisations into new jurisdictions, and new maternal vaccines in development. Meanwhile, other health providers are orienting parents towards vaccine acceptance, using strategies at odds with midwifery norms around information provision and maternal autonomy. To better understand and address the implications of these developments, we conducted a pilot study to ascertain how midwifery students in Australian universities are taught about immunisation, including dedicated time, assessment, who teaches it, and when. We also analysed teaching materials, looking for messaging regarding the importance of vaccination and whether midwives should be advocating for it. We found that education on immunisation comprises less than four hours of the degree, and encountered the norm of midwives informing about rather than recommending vaccination. The considerations we brought to our small project, and what it illuminated, suggest that midwifery university education is an important arena for developing future vaccine advocates. However, midwifery ideology and professional practice mean that such efforts will be challenging, and must commence from a position of respect for the values midwives hold.

'The Unhealthy Other': How vaccine rejecting parents construct the vaccinating mainstream.

To address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy and rejection, researchers increasingly recognise the need to engage with the social context of parents' decision-making. This study examines how vaccine rejecting parents socially construct the vaccinating mainstream in opposition to themselves. We analyse qualitative data from interviews with parents in Adelaide, South Australia. Applying insights from Social Identity Theory (SIT), we show how these parents bolster their own sense of identity and self-belief by employing a discourse that casts vaccinators as an Unhealthy Other. We demonstrate how the parents identify vaccination as a marker of parental conformity to the 'toxic practices of mass industrial society', linking it to other ways in which membership of the consumerist mainstream requires individuals to 'neglect their health.' This is explored through themes of appearance, diet, (over) consumption of pharmaceuticals, inadequate parenting values and wilful or misguided ignorance. This construction of the Unhealthy Other elevates the self-concept of vaccine hesitant and rejecting parents, who see themselves as part of an enlightened, but constantly besieged, group of healthy and virtuous parents. It is common for the vaccinating mainstream to present vaccine hesitant and rejecting parents as a group subject to epistemic closure, groupthink, confirmation bias and over-confidence in their own expertise. However, vaccine hesitant and rejecting parents also see mainstream society as a group-a much larger one-subject to the same problems. We suggest the need to mitigate the 'groupness' of vaccination and non-vaccination by extending the practice of vaccination to recognisable practitioners of holistic health.

"Do-it-yourself": Vaccine rejection and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

In this article, we elucidate a symbiotic relationship between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and rejection of, or hesitancy towards, vaccination. In Fremantle, Western Australia, and Adelaide, South Australia, we conducted in-depth interviews from September 2013-December 2015 with 29 parents who had refused or delayed some or all of their children's vaccines. Our qualitative analysis found that for many, their do-it-yourself ethic and personal agency was enhanced by self-directed CAM use, alongside (sometimes informal) CAM practitioner instruction. Reifying 'the natural,' these parents eschewed vaccines as toxic and adulterating, and embraced CAM as a protective strategy for immune systems before, during and after illness. Users saw CAM as harm-free, and when it came to experiences that non-users might interpret as demonstrating CAM's ineffectiveness, they rationalised to the contrary. They also generally glossed over its profit motive. CAM emerged as part of an expert system countering Western medicine. CAM's faces were trusted and familiar, and its cottage capitalism appeared largely free from the taint of "Big Pharma." A few parents employed a scientific critique of CAM modalities - and a minority were dubious of its profit motive - but others rejected the epistemology underpinning biomedicine, framing CAM as a knowledge not poisoned by avarice; a wisdom whose very evidence-base (anecdote and history) was demeaned by an arrogant scientific process only permitting belief in that which could be quantified. However, all parents engaged with Western medicine for broken bones and, sometimes, medical diagnoses. Our analysis suggests that pro-vaccination health professionals, policymakers and information-providers seeking to address the role of CAM in vaccine rejection face significant challenges due to the epistemic basis of some parents' decisions. However, we make some suggestions for professional practice and policy to enhance trust in vaccination.