Influenza and pertussis vaccination in pregnancy: Portrayal in online media articles and perceptions of pregnant women and healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Online media may influence women's decision to undergo vaccination during pregnancy. The aims of this mixed-methods study were to: (1) examine the portrayal of maternal vaccination in online media and (2) establish the perceived target of vaccine protection as viewed by pregnant women and maternity healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Online media articles on maternal vaccination (published July-December 2012 or November 2015-April 2016) were identified through the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Vaccine Confidence Database and thematically analysed. Questionnaires for pregnant women and HCPs were distributed within four English hospitals (July 2017-January 2018). RESULTS: Of 203 articles identified, 60% related to pertussis vaccination, 33% to influenza and 6% both. The majority positively portrayed vaccination in pregnancy (97%), but inaccurate, negative articles persist which criticize pertussis vaccination's safety and efficacy. Positively-worded articles about pertussis tended to focus on infant protection and highlight examples of recent cases, whereas positively-worded articles about influenza focused on maternal protection. These themes were reflected in questionnaire responses from 314 pregnant women and 204 HCPs, who perceived pertussis vaccination as protecting the baby, and influenza vaccination as protecting the mother, or mother and baby equally. A minority of the pregnant women surveyed intended to decline influenza (22%) or pertussis (8%) vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of online articles support pertussis and influenza vaccination during pregnancy. The portrayal of pertussis vaccination as primarily benefiting the child, using real-examples, may influence its higher uptake compared with influenza. This approach should be considered by HCPs when recommending vaccination. HCPs should be prepared to provide advice to women hesitant about vaccination, including addressing any negative media, and consider educational strategies to counteract inaccurate information. Future studies should directly assess the influence of media on vaccine decision-making and establish which media platforms are typically used by pregnant women to gather information.

Risk perception and the influence on uptake and use of biomedical prevention interventions for HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Risk perception has been found to be a crucial factor explaining inconsistent or non-use of HIV prevention interventions. Considerations of risk need to expand beyond risk of infection to also include the personal, social, emotional, and economic risks associated with prevention intervention use. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review of qualitative peer-reviewed literature from sub-Saharan Africa examines perceptions of risk associated with HIV infection and HIV prevention intervention use. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Africa Wide Info, CINAHL, and Global Health for publications and screened them for relevance. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed qualitative studies published since 2003 were eligible for inclusion if they examined risk perception or uncertainty in the context of a medically regulated intervention. Only studies focusing on adults were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Included publications were quality assessed using the Hawker method and coded thematically. RESULTS: 10318 unique papers were identified, of which 29 are included. Among the themes identified, a particularly salient one was the potential of HIV prevention interventions to threaten the stability of a relationship and impact on how and when people may-or may not-choose to use prevention interventions. LIMITATIONS: This literature review excludes grey-literature, which may have distinct valuable insights. We also excluded quantitative studies that may have challenged or triangulated our findings. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: When considering the risk of HIV acquisition, it is insufficient to examine biological risk in isolation from the personal, relational and economic costs associated with intervention use. This loss of emotional, physical, or material support may be perceived as more consequential than the prevention of a potential infection.

Controversial Ebola vaccine trials in Ghana: a thematic analysis of critiques and rebuttals in digital news.

BACKGROUND: Communication is of paramount importance in responding to health crises. We studied the media messages put forth by different stakeholders in two Ebola vaccine trials that became controversial in Ghana. These interactions between health authorities, political actors, and public citizens can offer key lessons for future research. Through an analysis of online media, we analyse stakeholder concerns and incentives, and the phases of the dispute, to understand how the dispute evolved to the point of the trials being suspended, and analyse what steps might have been taken to avert this outcome. METHODS: A web-based system was developed to download and analyse news reports relevant to Ebola vaccine trials. This included monitoring major online newspapers in each country with planned clinical trials, including Ghana. All news articles were downloaded, selecting out those containing variants of the words "Ebola," and "vaccine," which were analysed thematically by a team of three coders. Two types of themes were defined: critiques of the trials and rebuttals in favour of the trials. After reconciling differences between coders' results, the data were visualised and reviewed to describe and interpret the debate. RESULTS: A total of 27,460 articles, published between 1 May and 30 July 2015, were collected from nine different newspapers in Ghana, of which 139 articles contained the keywords and met the inclusion criteria. The final codebook included 27 themes, comprising 16 critiques and 11 rebuttals. After coding and reconciliation, the main critiques (and their associated rebuttals) were selected for in-depth analysis, including statements about the trials being secret (mentioned in 21% of articles), claims that the vaccine trials would cause an Ebola outbreak in Ghana (33%), and the alleged impropriety of the incentives offered to participants (35%). DISCUSSION: Perceptions that the trials were "secret" arose from a combination of premature news reporting and the fact that the trials were prohibited from conducting any publicity before being approved at the time that the story came out, which created an impression of secrecy. Fears about Ebola being spread in Ghana appeared in two forms, the first alleging that scientists would intentionally infect Ghanaians with Ebola in order to test the vaccine, and the second suggesting that the vaccine might give trial participants Ebola as a side-effect - over the course of the debate, the latter became the more prominent of the two variants. The incentives were sometimes criticised for being coercively large, but were much more often criticised for being too small, which may have been related to a misperception that the incentives were meant as compensation for the trials' risks, which were themselves exaggerated. CONCLUSION: The rumours captured through this research indicate the variety of strong emotions drawn out by the trials, highlighting the importance of understanding the emotional and social context of such research. The uncertainty, fear, and distrust associated with the trials draw from the contemporary context of the Ebola outbreak, as well as longstanding historical issues in Ghana. By analysing the debate from its inception, we can see how the controversy unfolded, and identify points of concern that can inform health communication, suggesting that this tool may be valuable in future epidemics and crises.

The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey.

BACKGROUND: Public trust in immunization is an increasingly important global health issue. Losses in confidence in vaccines and immunization programmes can lead to vaccine reluctance and refusal, risking disease outbreaks and challenging immunization goals in high- and low-income settings. National and international immunization stakeholders have called for better monitoring of vaccine confidence to identify emerging concerns before they evolve into vaccine confidence crises. METHODS: We perform a large-scale, data-driven study on worldwide attitudes to immunizations. This survey - which we believe represents the largest survey on confidence in immunization to date - examines perceptions of vaccine importance, safety, effectiveness, and religious compatibility among 65,819 individuals across 67 countries. Hierarchical models are employed to probe relationships between individual- and country-level socio-economic factors and vaccine attitudes obtained through the four-question, Likert-scale survey. FINDINGS: Overall sentiment towards vaccinations is positive across all 67 countries, however there is wide variability between countries and across world regions. Vaccine-safety related sentiment is particularly negative in the European region, which has seven of the ten least confident countries, with 41% of respondents in France and 36% of respondents in Bosnia & Herzegovina reporting that they disagree that vaccines are safe (compared to a global average of 13%). The oldest age group (65+) and Roman Catholics (amongst all faiths surveyed) are associated with positive views on vaccine sentiment, while the Western Pacific region reported the highest level of religious incompatibility with vaccines. Countries with high levels of schooling and good access to health services are associated with lower rates of positive sentiment, pointing to an emerging inverse relationship between vaccine sentiments and socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: Regular monitoring of vaccine attitudes - coupled with monitoring of local immunization rates - at the national and sub-national levels can identify populations with declining confidence and acceptance. These populations should be prioritized to further investigate the drivers of negative sentiment and to inform appropriate interventions to prevent adverse public health outcomes.

Measuring vaccine hesitancy: The development of a survey tool.

In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.

Measuring vaccine confidence: introducing a global vaccine confidence index.

BACKGROUND: Public confidence in vaccination is vital to the success of immunisation programmes worldwide. Understanding the dynamics of vaccine confidence is therefore of great importance for global public health. Few published studies permit global comparisons of vaccination sentiments and behaviours against a common metric. This article presents the findings of a multi-country survey of confidence in vaccines and immunisation programmes in Georgia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom (UK) - these being the first results of a larger project to map vaccine confidence globally. METHODS: Data were collected from a sample of the general population and from those with children under 5 years old against a core set of confidence questions. All surveys were conducted in the relevant local-language in Georgia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the UK. We examine confidence in immunisation programmes as compared to confidence in other government health services, the relationships between confidence in the system and levels of vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, ultimate vaccination decisions, and their variation based on country contexts and demographic factors. RESULTS: The numbers of respondents by country were: Georgia (n=1000); India (n=1259); Pakistan (n=2609); UK (n=2055); Nigerian households (n=12554); and Nigerian health providers (n=1272). The UK respondents with children under five years of age were more likely to hesitate to vaccinate, compared to other countries. Confidence in immunisation programmes was more closely associated with confidence in the broader health system in the UK (Spearman's ρ=0.5990), compared to Nigeria (ρ=0.5477), Pakistan (ρ=0.4491), and India (ρ=0.4240), all of which ranked confidence in immunisation programmes higher than confidence in the broader health system. Georgia had the highest rate of vaccine refusals (6 %) among those who reported initial hesitation. In all other countries surveyed most respondents who reported hesitating to vaccinate went on to receive the vaccine except in Kano state, Nigeria, where the percentage of those who ultimately refused vaccination after initially hesitating was as high as 76%) Reported reasons for hesitancy in all countries were classified under the domains of "confidence," "convenience," or "complacency," and confidence issues were found to be the primary driver of hesitancy in all countries surveyed.

Vaccine hesitancy: clarifying a theoretical framework for an ambiguous notion.

Today, according to many public health experts, public confidence in vaccines is waning. The term "vaccine hesitancy" (VH) is increasingly used to describe the spread of such vaccine reluctance. But VH is an ambiguous notion and its theoretical background appears uncertain. To clarify this concept, we first review the current definitions of VH in the public health literature and examine its most prominent characteristics. VH has been defined as a set of beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours, or some combination of them, shared by a large and heterogeneous portion of the population and including people who exhibit reluctant conformism (they may either decline a vaccine, delay it or accept it despite their doubts) and vaccine-specific behaviours. Secondly, we underline some of the ambiguities of this notion and argue that it is more a catchall category than a real concept. We also call into question the usefulness of understanding VH as an intermediate position along a continuum ranging from anti-vaccine to pro-vaccine attitudes, and we discuss its qualification as a belief, attitude or behaviour. Thirdly, we propose a theoretical framework, based on previous literature and taking into account some major structural features of contemporary societies, that considers VH as a kind of decision-making process that depends on people's level of commitment to healthism/risk culture and on their level of confidence in the health authorities and mainstream medicine.