Beyond the "information deficit model" - understanding vaccine-hesitant attitudes of midwives in Austria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are considered key stakeholders in efforts to address vaccine hesitancy. Midwives' influence in advising expectant parents on early-childhood vaccinations is unquestioned, yet they remain an understudied group. The literature on midwives' attitudes towards vaccinations is also inconclusive. We therefore conducted an explorative qualitative study on midwives' vaccine-hesitant attitudes towards MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccinations in Austria. METHODS: We conducted 12 in-depth interviews on their knowledge, concerns, and beliefs with midwives who self-identified as hesitant or resistant towards early-childhood MMR vaccinations. We analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach to distill common themes and meanings. RESULTS: Healthcare workers' stewardship to address vaccine hesitancy is commonly framed in terms of the "information deficit model": disseminate the right information and remedy publics' information deficits. Our findings suggest that this approach is too simplistic: Midwives' professional self-understanding, their notions of "good care" and "good parenthood" inflect how they engage with vaccine information and how they address it to their clients. Midwives' model of care prioritized good counseling rather than sharing scientific information in a "right the wrong"-manner. They saw themselves as critical consumers of that information and as promoting "empowered patients" who were free, and affluent enough, to make their own choices about vaccinations. In so doing, they also often promoted traditional notions of motherhood. CONCLUSIONS: Research shows that, for parents, vaccine decision-making builds on trust and dialogue with healthcare professionals and is more than a technical issue. In order to foster these interactions, understanding healthcare professionals' means of engaging with information is key to understanding how they engage with their constituents. Healthcare workers are more than neutral resources; their daily praxis influenced by their professional standing in the healthcare system. Similarly, healthcare professionals' views on vaccinations cannot be remedied with more information either. Building better and more diverse curricula for different groups of healthcare workers must attend to their respective roles, ethics of care, and professional beliefs. Taken together, better models for addressing vaccine hesitancy can only be developed by espousing a multi-faceted view of decision-making processes and interactions of healthcare workers with constituents.

Characteristics and Effectiveness of Co-Designed Mental Health Interventions in Primary Care for People Experiencing Homelessness: A Systematic Review.

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) face a disproportionately high prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes compared with the non-homeless population and are known to utilize primary healthcare services less frequently while seeking help in emergency care facilities. Given that primary health services are more efficient and cost-saving, services with a focus on mental health that are co-designed with the participation of users can tackle this problem. Hence, we aimed to synthesize the current evidence of such interventions to assess and summarize the characteristics and effectiveness of co-designed primary mental healthcare services geared towards adult PEH. Out of a total of 10,428 identified records, four articles were found to be eligible to be included in this review. Our findings show that co-designed interventions positively impacted PEH's mental health and housing situation or reduced hospital and emergency department admissions and increased primary care utilization. Therefore, co-designed mental health interventions appear a promising way of providing PEH with continued access to primary mental healthcare. However, as co-designed mental health interventions for PEH can improve overall mental health, quality of life, housing, and acute service utilization, more research is needed.

Vulnerability and One Health assessment approaches for infectious threats from a social science perspective: a systematic scoping review.

Vulnerability assessments identify vulnerable groups and can promote effective community engagement in responding to and mitigating destabilising events. This scoping review maps assessments for local-level vulnerabilities in the context of infectious threats. We searched various databases for articles written between 1978 and 2019. Eligible documents assessed local-level vulnerability, focusing on infectious threats and antimicrobial resistance. Since few studies provided this dual focus, we included tools from climate change and disaster risk reduction literature that engaged the community in the assessment. We considered studies using a One Health approach as essential for identifying vulnerability risk factors for zoonotic disease affecting humans. Of the 5390 records, we selected 36 articles for review. This scoping review fills a gap regarding vulnerability assessments by combining insights from various approaches: local-level understandings of vulnerability involving community perspectives; studies of social and ecological factors relevant to exposure; and integrated quantitative and qualitative methods that make generalisations based on direct observation. The findings inform the development of new tools to identify vulnerabilities and their relation to social and natural environments.

Vulnerability assessment tools for infectious threats and antimicrobial resistance: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol will guide and explain the working process of a systematic scoping review on vulnerability assessment tools in the field of infectious disease outbreaks and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crises. The scoping review will appraise existing tools or methodologies to identify local level vulnerabilities in the context of infectious disease outbreaks and AMR. Due to this focus on infectious threats and AMR, the review also considers articles using a 'One Health' approach to assess the vulnerability of individuals, groups and practices in human-animal-environment interactions. Given the broad nature of vulnerability, we aim to allocate studies discerning the process of identifying vulnerable or at-risk groups during a crisis, instead of studies taking vulnerability only as a starting point. Because considerable research has been conducted on vulnerability, disasters and climate change, we will also assemble tools developed from these fields. To our knowledge, this is the first planned systematic scoping review of vulnerability assessment tools for disease outbreaks and AMR, taking into account practices at the human-animal-environment interface that can lead to increased risk of exposure of individuals to infections, pathogen spillovers or epidemics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To develop the protocol, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P 2015) in compliance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Explanation and Elaboration. With the assistance of an experienced research librarian, we developed the search strategy, which targeted the following databases: Medline, Global Health database, Web of Science and Embase. A second strategy was developed for Epistemonikos, African Journals Online and Global Index Medicus because these databases do not provide the infrastructure for an advanced search. We consider studies published between 1978 and 2019 and include articles, book chapters, websites and grey literature from selected non-governmental organisations and non-profit organisations working in the health field. We contact them directly regarding whether they are working with or have developed a vulnerability assessment tool. To address the dynamic nature of our investigation, we develop a flow diagram which we continually update to reflect the selection process. Two reviewers (MJ and LL) independently screen the literature and resolve conflicts through discussion rounds. Data extraction will be conducted by four researchers (MJ, LL, EJ and RK) through inductive and deductive coding. Extracted data will be systematically compared and divergences highlighted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because this study does not involve collection of primary data. The purpose of this review is to disseminate a catalogue of vulnerability assessment tools and a brief summary of key results and recommendations for SoNAR-Global partners in Bangladesh, Ukraine and Uganda. The catalogue will be made publicly available. On the basis of our results, SoNAR-Global partners will pilot one of these tools.