Rural parents' vaccination-related attitudes and intention to vaccinate middle and high school children against influenza following educational influenza vaccination intervention

Evaluating the impact of school-based influenza vaccination programme on absenteeism and outbreaks at schools in Hong Kong: a retrospective cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal influenza causes annual school breaks and student absenteeism in Hong Kong schools and kindergartens. This proposal aims to conduct a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of a school-based influenza vaccination (SIV) programme on absenteeism and outbreaks at schools in Hong Kong.

METHODS

The study will compare schools that implemented the SIV programme with schools that did not. The data will be sourced from school records, encompassing absenteeism records, outbreak reports, and vaccination rates. We will recruit 1000 students from 381 schools and kindergartens in 18 districts of Hong Kong starting June 2024. The primary outcome measures will include absenteeism rates due to influenza and school influenza outbreaks. Secondary outcomes will consist of vaccination coverage rates and the impact of the SIV programme on hospitalisations due to influenza-like illness. A t-test will be conducted to compare the outcomes between schools with and without the SIV programme.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The school completed signing the participants' informed consent form before reporting the data to us. Our study has been approved by the Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster IRB Committee (IRB No: UW 17-111) and was a subtopic of the research "The estimated age-group specific influenza vaccine coverage rates in Hong Kong and the impact of the school outreach vaccination program".

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study will be retrospectively registered.

Moral foundations and HPV vaccine acceptance in the United States: State, parental, and individual factors

RATIONALE

Appeals to intuitive morality may present a novel approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the relationship between morality and vaccination by employing Moral Foundations Theory to studies surrounding the HPV vaccination at multiple different levels of decision making.

METHOD

We employed three different study modalities which examined moralities link to vaccination by employing Moral Foundations Theory. A state-wide ecological study aimed to understand population level trends. Two randomized control interventional studies were then created to understand the effects of Moral Foundations Theory based interventions on both parents of children and individual decision makers.

RESULTS

We demonstrated a negative association at the state level between the purity moral foundations and HPV vaccination rates (β = -.75, SE 0.23; p < .01) and a positive association between loyalty and HPV vaccination rates (β = 0.62 SE 0.24; p < .05). The parental study built upon this by demonstrating negative association between higher moral purity scores and attitudes towards the HPV vaccine and intention to vaccinate their children (β = -0.27 SE 0.07; p < .001). Our final study demonstrated a Moral Foundations Theory based intervention was associated with an increase in the odds of indicating an intention to receive the HPV vaccination (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 2.59, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.62-4.14). This equates to a 20% increase in the predicted probability of the intention to receive an HPV vaccine (39% CI (36%-42%) vs 60% CI (57%-63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Together, these studies demonstrate that moral foundations, specifically the purity foundation, appear to have a strong and consistent relationship with HPV vaccination. They also demonstrate the how moral values-based interventions may serve as a novel approach to increase HPV vaccine uptake with potential to be employed to target vaccine hesitancy more broadly.

Beyond Information Provision: Analysis of the Roles of Structure and Agency in COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in Ethnic Minority Communities

People from Black and Asian backgrounds are more likely to die from COVID-19 but less likely to be vaccinated, threatening to exacerbate health inequalities already experienced by ethnic minority groups. The literature suggests that mistrust rooted in structural inequality (including socioeconomic position and experience of racism) may be a key barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Understanding and addressing structural inequality is likely to lead to longer-term impacts than information alone. The aim of this study is to draw on health and sociological theories of structure and agency to inform our understanding of how structural factors influence vaccine confidence. We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 22 people from London and the surrounding areas from December 2021 to March 2022. Fourteen participants were members of the public from ethnic minority backgrounds, and seven were professionals working with the public to address concerns and encourage vaccine uptake. Our findings suggest that people from ethnic minority backgrounds make decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination based on a combination of how they experience external social structures (including lack of credibility and clarity from political authority, neglect by health services, and structural racism) and internal processes (weighing up COVID-19 vaccine harms and benefits and concerns about vaccine development and deployment). We may be able to support knowledge accumulation through the provision of reliable and accessible information, particularly through primary and community care, but we recommend a number of changes to research, policy and practice that address structural inequalities. These include working with communities to improve ethnicity data collection, increasing funding allocation to health conditions where ethnic minority communities experience poorer outcomes, greater transparency and public engagement in the vaccine development process, and culturally adapted research recruitment processes.

The doctor knows or the evidence shows: An online survey experiment testing the effects of source trust, pro-vaccine evidence, and dual-processing in expert messages recommending child COVID-19 vaccination to parents

Increasing child vaccination rates is a critical step toward mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Both distrust in expert sources and concern about the safety and efficacy of vaccines may contribute to parent vaccine hesitancy. The present study is the first to test the effectiveness of building trust and providing evidence supporting child COVID-19 vaccines in recommendation messages for parents. Based on dual-processing theories, emphasis on source trustworthiness and pro-vaccine evidence may each be particularly effective when the other is not present. It was hypothesized that these two approaches would have main and interaction effects on perceived message effectiveness and pro-vaccine beliefs. A between-subjects 2 (trust-building appeal vs. no trust-building appeal) X 2 (pro-vaccine evidence vs. no pro-vaccine evidence) online survey experiment was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 with United States parents/guardians of children <18 years old (n = 401). As hypothesized, trust and pro-vaccine evidence each had significant simple main effects on both outcomes. Analysis of variance showed a significant negative interaction effect of trust and pro-vaccine evidence on perceived message effectiveness [F(3, 394) = 6.47; η2 = 0.02, p = 0.002; 95% CI (0.01, 0.11)], supporting the dual-processing hypothesis. The interaction effect on pro-vaccine beliefs was also negative but not significant [F(3, 394) = 2.69; η2 = 0.01; p = 0.102; 95% CI (0.00, 0.03)]. Either highlighting evidence supporting vaccines or building trust in expert sources can influence parent vaccine support. Messages which include strong evidence supporting recommended behaviors may influence recommendation acceptance even among those with lower trust in expert sources and establishing trust may reduce the need to describe available evidence.

Health behaviors and psychological burden of adolescents after parental cancer diagnosis

This study aims to investigate health behaviors and psychological burdens in adolescent children of cancer parents. We compared health behaviors and mental health outcomes between 266 adolescent children with a parent diagnosed with cancer and 3163 control adolescents aged 12-19 years using data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) from 2010 to 2018. Alcohol use of adolescents increased between 2 and 5 years after parental cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.94) but decreased after 5 years. Parental cancer was associated with increased vaccination uptake in adolescents within 1 year of diagnosis (aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.55-6.54), but after 2 years, there was no difference from rates in their peers. Maternal cancer was associated with increased depression among adolescents (aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.10 - 2.73). Although the risks of suicidal thoughts/plans/attempts increased within 1 year after parental cancer diagnosis (aOR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.00 - 8.83), it reduced 2 years after diagnosis, leading to no significant difference from the frequency in peers. Within five years after the parent was diagnosed with cancer, support for their adolescent children's health behaviors and mental health is necessary in the community.

Parents' and Guardians' Intentions to Vaccinate Children against COVID-19

A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess Arkansas parents'/guardians' intentions to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. Parents/guardians whose oldest child was age 0-11 years (n = 171) or 12-17 years (n = 198) were recruited between 12 July and 30 July 2021 through random digit dialing. Among parents/guardians with an age-eligible child, age 12-17, 19% reported their child had been vaccinated, and 34% reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Among parents/guardians with a child aged 0-11, 33% of parents/guardians reported they would have their child vaccinated right away. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 12-17 and 26% of parents/guardians whose oldest child was 0-11 reported they would only have their child vaccinated if their school required it; otherwise, they would definitely not vaccinate them. For both groups, parents'/guardians' education, COVID-19 vaccination status, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were significantly associated with intentions to vaccinate their child. More than a third of parents/guardians whose child was eligible for vaccination at the time of the survey reported they intended to have them vaccinated right away; however, they had not vaccinated their child more than two months after approval. This finding raises questions about the remaining barriers constraining some parents/guardians from vaccinating their child.

Using moral foundations in government communication to reduce vaccine hesitancy

Having a vaccine available does not necessarily imply that it will be used. Indeed, uptake rates for existing vaccines against infectious diseases have been fluctuating in recent years. Literature suggests that vaccine hesitancy may be grounded in deeply rooted intuitions or values, which can be modelled using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). We examine the respective prominence of the MFT dimensions in government communication regarding childhood vaccinations and explore its effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. We measure the MFT dimension loading of the vaccination information brochures from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) between 2011-2019 and connect this information with the electronic national immunisation register to investigate if the use of moral foundations in government communication has a measurable effect on vaccination uptake. We find the largest positive effect for the dimensions Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression and suggestive evidence in favour of a small positive effect for Purity/Degradation. Conversely, Loyalty/Betrayal actually has a negative effect on vaccination rates. For the dimension Harm/Care, we find no significant effect. While Purity/Degradation and Harm/Care appear to be the two most frequently used moral foundations by RIVM, these dimensions have in fact no or only a minor effect on parents' vaccine hesitancy. Reducing the use of these moral foundations may be the first step towards optimising government communication in this context. Instead, formulations activating the moral foundations Authority/Subversion and Liberty/Oppression appear to have positive effects on vaccination uptake.

Understanding the psychosocial determinants of Italian parents' intentions not to vaccinate their children: an extended theory of planned behaviour model

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the psychosocial factors involved in Italian parents' intentions not to vaccinate their children. For this purpose, we used an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which included both proximal and distal factors influencing intention not to vaccinate children.

DESIGN

Participants included 447 Italian parents, each completed an online questionnaire, which measured intention not to vaccinate children, attitude toward not vaccinating, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, anticipated regret, negative attitude toward vaccines, risk perception, trust in healthcare institutions, trust in science and religious morality.

RESULTS

Results showed that attitude toward not vaccinating was strongly associated with intention not to vaccinate children. Furthermore, attitude toward not vaccinating was associated with negative attitude toward vaccines, which in turn was affected by all the distal factors considered (risk perception, trust in healthcare institutions, trust in science, religious morality). Finally, negative attitude toward vaccines fully mediated the effect of the distal factors on attitude toward not vaccinating children.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide support for the validity of the proposed extended TPB model in explaining parents' intention not to vaccinate children. Theoretical and practical implications, in terms of understanding and promoting vaccination behaviour, are discussed.

Rural, urban, and suburban differences in influenza vaccination coverage among children

Influenza vaccination is the primary way to prevent influenza, yet influenza vaccination coverage remains low in the United States. Previous studies have shown that children residing in rural areas have less access to healthcare and lower vaccination coverage for some vaccines. Influenza vaccination coverage among children 6 months-17 years by rural/urban residence during the 2011-12 through 2018-19 influenza seasons was examined using National Immunization Survey-Flu data. The Council of American Survey Research Organizations response rates for National Immunization Survey-Flu ranged from 48% to 65% (2011-12 through the 2017-18 seasons) for the landline sample and 20%-39% (2011-12 through the 2018-19 seasons) for the cellular telephone sample. Children residing in rural areas had influenza vaccination coverage that ranged from 7.9 (2012-13 season) to 12.6 (2016-17 season) percentage points lower than children residing in urban areas, and ranged from 4.5 (2012-13 season) to 7.4 (2016-17 season) percentage points lower than children residing in suburban areas. The differences in influenza vaccination coverage among rural, suburban, and urban children were consistent over the eight seasons studied. Lower influenza vaccination coverage was observed among rural children regardless of child's age, mother's education, household income, or number of children under 18 years of age in the household. Rural versus urban and suburban differences in influenza vaccination coverage remained statistically significant while adjusting for selected sociodemographic characteristics. A better understanding of the reasons for lower childhood influenza vaccination coverage for children in rural and suburban areas is needed.

Improving vaccination uptake among adolescents

BACKGROUND

Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond childhood. In recent years, many programmes have been launched to increase the uptake of different vaccines in adolescent populations; however, vaccination coverage among adolescents remains suboptimal. Therefore, understanding and evaluating the various interventions that can be used to improve adolescent vaccination is crucial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of interventions to improve vaccine uptake among adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2018, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and eight other databases. In addition, we searched two clinical trials platforms, electronic databases of grey literature, and reference lists of relevant articles. For related systematic reviews, we searched four databases. Furthermore, in May 2019, we performed a citation search of five other websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies of adolescents (girls or boys aged 10 to 19 years) eligible for World Health Organization-recommended vaccines and their parents or healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records, reviewed full-text articles to identify potentially eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. For each included study, we calculated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We pooled study results using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (eight individually randomised trials, four cluster randomised trials, three non-randomised trials, and one controlled before-after study). Twelve studies were conducted in the USA, while there was one study each from: Australia, Sweden, Tanzania, and the UK. Ten studies had unclear or high risk of bias. We categorised interventions as recipient-oriented, provider-oriented, or health systems-oriented. The interventions targeted adolescent boys or girls or both (seven studies), parents (four studies), and providers (two studies). Five studies had mixed participants that included adolescents and parents, adolescents and healthcare providers, and parents and healthcare providers. The outcomes included uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) (11 studies); hepatitis B (three studies); and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap), meningococcal, HPV, and influenza (three studies) vaccines among adolescents. Health education improves HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). In addition, one large study provided evidence that a complex multi-component health education intervention probably results in little to no difference in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to simplified information leaflets on the vaccine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99; 17,411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Financial incentives may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.99; 1 study, 500 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether combining health education and financial incentives has an effect on hepatitis B vaccine uptake, compared to usual practice (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.00; 1 study, 104 participants; very low certainty evidence). Mandatory vaccination probably leads to a large increase in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 3.92, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.20; 1 study, 6462 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Provider prompts probably make little or no difference compared to usual practice, on completion of Tdap (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.80; 2 studies, 3296 participants), meningococcal (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; 2 studies, 3219 participants), HPV (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.81; 2 studies, 859 participants), and influenza (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 2 studies, 1439 participants) vaccination schedules (moderate-certainty evidence). Provider education with performance feedback may increase the proportion of adolescents who are offered and accept HPV vaccination by clinicians, compared to usual practice. Compared to adolescents visiting non-participating clinicians (in the usual practice group), the adolescents visiting clinicians in the intervention group were more likely to receive the first dose of HPV during preventive visits (5.7 percentage points increase) and during acute visits (0.7 percentage points for the first and 5.6 percentage points for the second doses of HPV) (227 clinicians and more than 200,000 children; low-certainty evidence). A class-based school vaccination strategy probably leads to slightly higher HPV vaccine uptake than an age-based school vaccination strategy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13; 1 study, 5537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component provider intervention (including an education session, repeated contacts, individualised feedback, and incentives) probably improves uptake of HPV vaccine compared to usual practice (moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component intervention targeting providers and parents involving social marketing and health education may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.59; 1 study, 25,869 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Various strategies have been evaluated to improve adolescent vaccination including health education, financial incentives, mandatory vaccination, and class-based school vaccine delivery. However, most of the evidence is of low to moderate certainty. This implies that while this research provides some indication of the likely effect of these interventions, the likelihood that the effects will be substantially different is high. Therefore, additional research is needed to further enhance adolescent immunisation strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries where there are limited adolescent vaccination programmes. In addition, it is critical to understand the factors that influence hesitancy, acceptance, and demand for adolescent vaccination in different settings. This is the topic of an ongoing Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, which may help to explain why and how some interventions were more effective than others in increasing adolescent HPV vaccination coverage.

Evaluation of Educational Interventions to Enhance Adolescent Specific Vaccination Coverage

BACKGROUND

In this study, we assessed impact of two educational interventions designed to increase coverage of three vaccines recommended during adolescence among Georgia middle and high school students (tetanus diphtheria pertussis [Tdap], meningococcal [MenACWY], and human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccines).

METHODS

We randomized 11 middle and high schools in one school district into one of three arms: (1) control; (2) educational intervention for parents only (P only); and (3) multicomponent educational intervention for parents and adolescents (P + A), which consisted of educational brochures for parents about vaccines recommended during adolescence and a vaccine-focused curriculum delivered to adolescents by science teachers. We obtained vaccination coverage data during intervention years from the state immunization registry.

RESULTS

Odds of receiving at least one vaccine during the study were higher among adolescents in P + A arm compared to control (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.1-2.0). Adolescents in P + A arm had greater odds of receiving at least one vaccine compared with those in P only arm (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7).

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent educational intervention for adolescents and parents increased adolescent vaccination uptake. Results suggest similar interventions can increase awareness and demand for vaccines among parents and adolescents.

Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy

Clusters of unvaccinated children are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease ^1,2 . Existing messaging interventions demonstrate short-term success, but some may backfire and worsen vaccine hesitancy ³ . Values-based messages appeal to core morality, which influences the attitudes individuals then have on topics like vaccination ^4-7 . We must understand how underlying morals, not just attitudes, differ by hesitancy type to develop interventions that work with individual values. Here, we show in two correlational studies that harm and fairness foundations are not significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy, but purity and liberty foundations are. We found that medium-hesitancy parents were twice as likely as low-hesitancy parents to highly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.27-3.40). High-hesitancy respondents were twice as likely to strongly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.31) and liberty (adjusted odds ratio: 2.19; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-3.21). Our results demonstrate that endorsement of harm and fairness-ideas often emphasized in traditional vaccine-focused messages-are not predictive of vaccine hesitancy. This, combined with significant associations of purity and liberty with hesitancy, indicates a need for inclusion of broader themes in vaccine discussions. These findings have the potential for application to other health decisions and communications as well.

Influence of sources of information about influenza vaccine on parental attitudes and adolescent vaccine receipt

In 2011-2012, only 34% of 13-17 years olds in the United States (US) received seasonal influenza vaccine. Little is known about the link between parents' sources of health information, their vaccine-related attitudes, and vaccination of their adolescent against influenza. This study seeks to determine the relationship between number of sources of information on influenza vaccine, parental attitudes toward influenza vaccine, and influenza vaccine uptake in adolescents. We conducted a telephone and web-based survey among US parents of students enrolled in 6 middle and 5 high schools in Georgia. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to examine associations between the number of information sources about influenza vaccine and vaccine receipt and whether parent vaccine-related attitudes act as a mediator. The most commonly reported sources of information were: a physician/medical professional (95.0%), a family member or friend (80.6%), and television (77.2%). Parents who had higher attitude scores toward influenza vaccine were 5 times as likely to report their adolescent had ever received influenza vaccine compared to parents who had lower attitude scores (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 5.1; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.1-8.4; P < 0.01). Parent vaccine-related attitudes were a significant mediator of the relationship between sources of information and vaccine receipt. In light of the low response rate and participation in an adolescent vaccination intervention, findings may not be generalizable to other populations. This study shows the importance of multiple sources of information in influencing parental decision-making about influenza vaccine for adolescents. Harnessing the power of mass media and family members and friends as health advocates for influenza vaccination can potentially help increase vaccination coverage of adolescents.

Human papillomavirus vaccination among adolescents in Georgia

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage for adolescent females and males remains low in the United States. We conducted a 3-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in middle and high schools in eastern Georgia from 2011-2013 to determine the effect of 2 educational interventions used to increase adolescent vaccination coverage for the 4 recommended adolescent vaccines: Tdap, MCV4, HPV and influenza. As part of this RCT, this article focuses on: 1) describing initiation and completion of HPV vaccine series among a diverse population of male and female adolescents; 2) assessing parental attitudes toward HPV vaccine; and 3) examining correlates of HPV vaccine series initiation and completion. Parental attitude score was the strongest predictor of HPV vaccine initiation among adolescents (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.80, 2.39). Other correlates that significantly predicted HPV series initiation were gender, study year, and intervention arm. Parental attitudes remained a significant predictor of receipt of 3 doses of HPV vaccine along with gender, race, school type and insurance type. This study demonstrates that positive parental attitudes are important predictors of HPV vaccination and critical to increasing coverage rates. Our findings suggest that more research is needed to understand how parental attitudes are developed and evolve over time.

School-Located Vaccination Clinics for Adolescents: Correlates of Acceptance Among Parents

Four vaccines are recommended by The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices for adolescents: tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4), human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), and annual seasonal influenza vaccine. However, coverage among adolescents is suboptimal. School-located vaccination clinics (SLVCs) offer vaccines to students at school, increasing access. This study seeks to determine the relationship between attitudes of parents of middle- and high-school students and acceptance of SLVCs for all four adolescent recommended vaccines. We conducted a telephone and web-based survey among parents of students enrolled in six middle and five high schools in Georgia. Analyses were conducted to examine associations between parental attitudes and willingness to allow their child to be vaccinated at school. Tdap and influenza vaccine had the highest rates of parental SLVC acceptance while HPV vaccine had the lowest. Parents who accepted SLVCs had higher perceived severity of influenza, meningococcal, and HPV illnesses compared to parents who did not accept SLVC. Intention to vaccinate was associated with SLVC acceptance for Tdap [Adjusted OR (AOR) 7.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.44-22.31], MCV4 (AOR 2.97; 95% CI 1.67-5.28), and HPV vaccines (AOR 7.61; 95% CI 3.43-16.89). Social norms were associated with acceptance of SLVCs for influenza vaccine (AOR 1.44; 95% CI 1.12-1.84). These findings suggest parents of adolescents are generally supportive of SLVCs for recommended adolescent vaccines. Perceived severity of illness and intention to get their adolescent vaccinated were the most consistent correlates of parental SLVC acceptance for all vaccines. Future SLVC planning should focus on perceptions of disease severity and benefits of vaccination.

Identifying Parents Who Are Amenable to Pro-Vaccination Conversations

While health care providers are often cited as parents’ most trusted source for information and advice about vaccination, parents differ in their level of receptiveness to pro-vaccination conversations. The purpose of this research was to identify points in individual parents’ decision-making processes when parents are particularly open to receiving information and advice from their children’s health care providers. Interview data were collected from 20 mothers and 5 couples. Analysis of these data suggested 3 primary circumstances when parents were particularly open to receiving information and advice: during parents’ initial decision-making, as parents continued to assess vaccination options, and during particular circumstances that prompted parents to reconsider previously made vaccination choices. These results provide a mechanism for providers to identify parents who may be particularly receptive to pro-vaccination conversations. By prioritizing conversations with parents at one of these points, health care providers’ efforts at promoting vaccination may be more effective.

Randomized evaluation of live attenuated vs. inactivated influenza vaccines in schools (RELATIVES) cluster randomized trial: Pilot results from a household surveillance study to assess direct and indirect protection from influenza vaccination

BACKGROUND

Children are key drivers of influenza transmission. Vaccinating school age children decreases influenza in the community.

OBJECTIVE

To pilot-test the methods for a future trial to compare the direct and indirect benefits of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) vs. live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in preventing influenza infection.

METHODS

During the 2013-14 influenza vaccination campaign, we piloted an open-label cluster randomized trial involving 10 elementary schools in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. We randomized schools on a 1:1 basis to have students receive IIV or LAIV. We invited a subset of vaccinated students and their households to participate in a surveillance sub-study, which involved completing daily symptom diaries during influenza season and collecting mid-turbinate swabs from symptomatic individuals to detect influenza infection. The main outcome measure was confirmed influenza infection using a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay.

RESULTS

One hundred and nineteen households (166 students and 293 household members) participated. During 15 weeks of surveillance, we detected 22 episodes of PCR-confirmed influenza (21 influenza A/H1N1 and 1 influenza B). The incidence of influenza per 1000 person-days was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.40-2.89) for IIV-vaccinated students, compared to 0.13 (95% CI, 0.003-0.72) for LAIV-vaccinated students; the incidence rate ratio was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.002-0.94). Similarly, the incidence of influenza per 1000 person-days was 1.33 (95% CI, 0.64-2.44) for IIV household members, compared to 0.47 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03) for LAIV household members; the incidence rate ratio was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.11-1.08). The overall incidence rate ratio (combining students and household members) was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.09-0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Household surveillance involving participant monitoring and reporting of symptoms and self-collection of mid-turbinate swabs is feasible. A larger study is required to validate the suggestion that vaccinating children with LAIV might confer more protection against influenza for both children and their household contacts, compared to IIV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01995851.

Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.

The role of parental attitudes and provider discussions in uptake of adolescent vaccines

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parental vaccine attitudes, the number of specific vaccines discussed with a provider, and immunization outcomes including discussing immunization with their teen, knowledge of adolescent vaccine schedule, and their son or daughter being up-to-date on recommended vaccines using a nationally weight sample. Parents completed an internet-based survey between December 2012 and January 2013 and we computed a vaccine attitude scale (higher scores indicating stronger and more positive attitudes toward vaccination of teen) for each parent and categorized them into one of three groups: low (n=76), medium (n=207) or high (n=215). We also constructed a vaccine discussion scale representing the number of vaccines discussed with their adolescent's physician. Parents who were identified as having high vaccine attitudes were significantly more likely to report their physician talked with them about a particular vaccine. Using logistic regression and controlling for respondent's gender and age, income, and teen's gender, we found medium as compared to low-attitude parents had a 6.21 (95%CI=3.08, 12.51) greater odds of reporting that their teen had all recommended vaccines. Similarly, high as compared to low-attitude parents reported a 23.02 (95% CI=11.27, 46.99) greater odds of having a teen who was up-to-date on recommended vaccines. We detected that for each additional vaccine discussed, there was a 1.24 (95%CI=1.11, 1.39) increase in odds of the teen having all recommended vaccines. Parental immunization attitudes and provider discussion about vaccines are key ingredients to improving immunization rates among adolescents. While some parents may be reluctant to immunize their son or daughter with a recommended vaccine, vaccine-specific discussions between physicians and parents represent an important first step to continued discussions with providers regarding vaccination. Moreover, vaccine discussions must occur within the context of ongoing conversations about health and disease prevention.

What are the factors that contribute to parental vaccine-hesitancy and what can we do about it?

Parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccines is increasing. Barriers to vaccination among this population have been described, yet less is known regarding motivating factors. Researchers are beginning to evaluate various approaches to address the concerns of "vaccine-hesitant" parents, but few studies have evaluated the effect of interventions on timely vaccine uptake. Several models for communicating with vaccine-hesitant parents have been reported for healthcare providers; however, the effectiveness and utility of these strategies has not been quantified. This article reviews the known barriers to vaccination reported by vaccine-hesitant parents and the current evidence on strategies to address parental vaccine hesitancy.

Development, theoretical framework, and evaluation of a parent and teacher-delivered intervention on adolescent vaccination

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended immunization schedule for adolescents includes three vaccines (tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis [Tdap]; human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine; and meningococcal conjugate vaccine [MCV4]) and an annual influenza vaccination. Given the increasing number of recommended vaccines for adolescents and health and economic costs associated with nonvaccination, it is imperative that effective strategies for increasing vaccination rates among adolescents are developed. This article describes the development, theoretical framework, and initial first-year evaluation of an intervention designed to promote vaccine acceptance among a middle and high school-based sample of adolescents and their parents in eastern Georgia. Adolescents, parents, and teachers were active participants in the development of the intervention. The intervention, which consisted of a brochure for parents and a teacher-delivered curriculum for adolescents, was guided by constructs from the health belief model and theory of reasoned action. Evaluation results indicated that our intervention development methods were successful in creating a brochure that met cultural relevance and the literacy needs of parents. We also demonstrated an increase in student knowledge of and positive attitudes toward vaccines. To our knowledge, this study is the first to extensively engage middle and high school students, parents, and teachers in the design and implementation of key theory-based educational components of a school-based, teacher-delivered adolescent vaccination intervention.

Community-centered education improves vaccination rates in children from low-income households

OBJECTIVE

We partnered with the Salvation Army to educate resource-poor families regarding childhood immunizations in an effort to improve vaccine coverage rates.

METHODS

Eligibility for enrollment included children of families presenting at registration for our Salvation Army holiday gift program, available to families with an annual income <150% of federal poverty guidelines. Parents completed a questionnaire, were provided each child's vaccination status as documented in the New York State Immunization Information System, and interacted with the study team to address immunization-related concerns. Missed vaccines were identified and parents were directed to their child's medical home for necessary immunizations. Vaccine coverage was ascertained via the New York State Immunization Information System every 6 to 8 weeks with telephone follow-up for children who remained delayed. The McNemar test and standard 2-proportion comparison were used to determine confidence intervals when analyzing matched or independent data, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 1531 children were enrolled; 416 (28%) of the 1477 children with accurate immunization records were vaccine complete. When we excluded influenza vaccine, 1034 (70%) of children had received all other recommended vaccines. Nine months later, vaccine completion rates increased from 28% to 45%, largely because of improvements in influenza vaccination rates, which increased by 17% (confidence interval [CI] 15.5-19.5), a significant improvement over county (8%, 95% CI 7.4-8.1) and statewide (5%, 95% CI 4.7-4.8) rates during the same period.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunization rates in poor children are suboptimal. Partnering with community-based organizations to address parental concerns, provide education, and perform follow-up was effective in improving immunization rates, particularly for influenza vaccine.

Understanding reasons for participating in a school-based influenza vaccination program and decision-making dynamics among adolescents and parents

Influenza remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Vaccinating school-aged children has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the child and in reducing viral transmission to vulnerable groups such as the elderly. This qualitative study sought to identify reasons parents and students participated in a school-based influenza vaccination clinic and to characterize the decision-making process for vaccination. Eight focus groups were conducted with parents and students. Parents and students who participated in the influenza vaccination clinic stated the educational brochure mailed to their home influenced participation in the program. Parents of non-participating students mentioned barriers, such as the lengthy and complicated consent process and suspicions about the vaccine clinic, as contributing to their decision not to vaccinate their child. Vaccinated students reported initiating influenza vaccine discussion with their parents. Parental attitudes and the educational material influenced parents' decision to allow their child to receive influenza vaccine. This novel study explored reasons for participating in a school-based vaccination clinic and the decision-making process between parents and child(ren). Persons running future school-based vaccination clinics may consider hosting an 'information session with a question and answer session' to address parental concerns and assist with the consent process.

Impact of a physician recommendation and parental immunization attitudes on receipt or intention to receive adolescent vaccines

Four vaccines are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for adolescents. Parental attitudes may play a key role in vaccination uptake in this age group. In 2011, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among parents of adolescents in one county in Georgia to identify parental attitudes toward adolescent vaccination, reasons for vaccine acceptance or refusal, and impact of a physician recommendation for vaccination. Physician recommendation was reported as one of the top reasons for receipt or intent to receive any of the vaccines. Physician recommendation of any of the four vaccines was associated with receipt of Tdap (p<0.001), MCV4 (p<0.001), and HPV (p = 0.03) and intent to receive Tdap (p = 0.05), MCV4 (p = 0.005), and HPV (p = 0.05). Compared with parents who did not intend to have their adolescent vaccinated with any of the vaccines, parents who did intend reported higher perceived susceptibility (3.12 vs. 2.63, p = 0.03) and severity of disease (3.89 vs. 3.70, p = 0.02) and higher perceived benefit of vaccination (8.48 vs. 7.74, p = 0.02). These findings suggest that future vaccination efforts geared toward parents may benefit from addressing the advantages of vaccination and enhancing social norms. Physicians can play a key role by providing information on the benefits of adolescent vaccination.

A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy

Unvaccinated individuals pose a public health threat to communities. Research has identified many factors associated with parental vaccine refusal and hesitancy toward childhood and adolescent immunizations. However, data on the effectiveness of interventions to address parental refusal are limited. We conducted a systematic review of four online databases to identify interventional studies. We used criteria recommended by the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization (SAGE) for the quality assessment of studies. Intervention categories and outcomes were evaluated for each body of evidence and confidence in overall estimates of effect was determined. There is limited evidence to guide implementation of effective strategies to deal with the emerging threat of parental vaccine refusal. There is a need for appropriately designed, executed and evaluated intervention studies to address this gap in knowledge.