OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of using direct observation of provider-parent immunization discussions and to characterize provider communication practices with vaccine-hesitant parents. METHODS: Over a 6 month period in 2010, we videotaped immunization discussions between pediatric providers and vaccine-hesitant parents during health supervision visits involving children 2-15 months old (N=24) in the Seattle area, Washington, USA. Videotapes were analyzed using the qualitative method of conversation analysis. RESULTS: We approached 96 parents seen by 9 different providers. Of those who were eligible (N=56), we enrolled 43% (N=24). Four videotaped visits were excluded from analysis for failure to obtain parental HIPAA authorization. Of the remaining 20 visits, there were ≥2 visits each that involved children aged 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months, and all videotaped visits contained at least a brief immunization discussion. We identified 6 communication practices and several behavior types within each practice relevant to immunization: Practice 1, providers' initiations of the topic of vaccination; Types: participatory or presumptive format; Practice 2, parents' responses to providers' topic initiations; Types: strong or weak acceptance or resistance; Practice 3, providers' follow-ups to parent's responses; Types: no, immediate, or delayed pursuit; Practice 4, parents' vaccine-related questions or statements; Types: fact- or concern-based; Practice 5, providers' explicit solicitations of parent's questions/concerns; Types: designed to discourage or encourage discussion; and Practice 6, parents' responses to providers' solicitations of questions/concerns; Types: no question or fact- or concern-based inquiry. CONCLUSION: Direct observation of immunization discussions in the primary care pediatric setting is feasible and yields insight into several provider-parent immunization communication practices that are worthy of further study to determine which are effective at improving parental acceptance of immunization.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of using direct observation of provider-parent immunization discussions and to characterize provider communication practices with vaccine-hesitant parents. METHODS: Over a 6 month period in 2010, we videotaped immunization discussions between pediatric providers and vaccine-hesitant parents during health supervision visits involving children 2-15 months old (N=24) in the Seattle area, Washington, USA. Videotapes were analyzed using the qualitative method of conversation analysis. RESULTS: We approached 96 parents seen by 9 different providers. Of those who were eligible (N=56), we enrolled 43% (N=24). Four videotaped visits were excluded from analysis for failure to obtain parental HIPAA authorization. Of the remaining 20 visits, there were ≥2 visits each that involved children aged 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months, and all videotaped visits contained at least a brief immunization discussion. We identified 6 communication practices and several behavior types within each practice relevant to immunization: Practice 1, providers' initiations of the topic of vaccination; Types: participatory or presumptive format; Practice 2, parents' responses to providers' topic initiations; Types: strong or weak acceptance or resistance; Practice 3, providers' follow-ups to parent's responses; Types: no, immediate, or delayed pursuit; Practice 4, parents' vaccine-related questions or statements; Types: fact- or concern-based; Practice 5, providers' explicit solicitations of parent's questions/concerns; Types: designed to discourage or encourage discussion; and Practice 6, parents' responses to providers' solicitations of questions/concerns; Types: no question or fact- or concern-based inquiry. CONCLUSION: Direct observation of immunization discussions in the primary care pediatric setting is feasible and yields insight into several provider-parent immunization communication practices that are worthy of further study to determine which are effective at improving parental acceptance of immunization.
Authors: Douglas J Opel; John Heritage; James A Taylor; Rita Mangione-Smith; Halle Showalter Salas; Victoria Devere; Chuan Zhou; Jeffrey D Robinson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: L Aubree Shay; Richard L Street; Austin S Baldwin; Emily G Marks; Simon Craddock Lee; Robin T Higashi; Celette Sugg Skinner; Sobha Fuller; Donna Persaud; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-06-25
Authors: Allison Kempe; Sean T O'Leary; Jo Ann Shoup; Shannon Stokley; Steven Lockhart; Anna Furniss; L Miriam Dickinson; Juliana Barnard; Matthew F Daley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: S Elizabeth Williams; Russell L Rothman; Paul A Offit; William Schaffner; Molly Sullivan; Kathryn M Edwards Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.107