Donna M MacDougall1,2, Scott A Halperin1. 1. a Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and Nova Scotia Health Authority , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada. 2. b School of Nursing, St. Francis Xavier University , Antigonish , Nova Scotia , Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of vaccines are recommended or are being developed for use during pregnancy to protect women, fetuses, and/or newborns. For vaccines that are already recommended, vaccine uptake is variable and well below desired target. We reviewed the literature related to factors that affect a healthcare provider's recommendation and a woman's willingness to be vaccinated during pregnancy. DESIGN: A scoping review of published literature from 2005 to 2015 was undertaken and all relevant articles were abstracted, summarized, and organized thematically. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified that either decreased or increased the likelihood of a healthcare provider offering and a pregnant woman accepting vaccination during pregnancy. Concern about the safety of vaccines given during pregnancy was the most often cited barrier among both the public and healthcare providers. Other barriers included doubt about the effectiveness of the vaccine, lack of knowledge about the burden of disease, and not feeling oneself to be at risk of the infection. Major facilitators for maternal immunization included specific safety information about the vaccine in pregnant women, strong national recommendations, and healthcare providers who both recommended and provided the vaccine to their patients. Systems barriers such as inadequate facilities and staffing, vaccine purchase and storage, and reimbursement for vaccination were also cited. Evidence-based interventions were few, and included text messaging reminders, chart reminders, and standing orders. CONCLUSIONS: In order to have an effective vaccination program, improvements in the uptake of recommended vaccines during pregnancy are needed. A maternal immunization platform is required that normalizes vaccination practice among obstetrical care providers and is supported by basic and continuing education, communication strategy, and a broad range of research.
OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of vaccines are recommended or are being developed for use during pregnancy to protect women, fetuses, and/or newborns. For vaccines that are already recommended, vaccine uptake is variable and well below desired target. We reviewed the literature related to factors that affect a healthcare provider's recommendation and a woman's willingness to be vaccinated during pregnancy. DESIGN: A scoping review of published literature from 2005 to 2015 was undertaken and all relevant articles were abstracted, summarized, and organized thematically. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified that either decreased or increased the likelihood of a healthcare provider offering and a pregnant woman accepting vaccination during pregnancy. Concern about the safety of vaccines given during pregnancy was the most often cited barrier among both the public and healthcare providers. Other barriers included doubt about the effectiveness of the vaccine, lack of knowledge about the burden of disease, and not feeling oneself to be at risk of the infection. Major facilitators for maternal immunization included specific safety information about the vaccine in pregnant women, strong national recommendations, and healthcare providers who both recommended and provided the vaccine to their patients. Systems barriers such as inadequate facilities and staffing, vaccine purchase and storage, and reimbursement for vaccination were also cited. Evidence-based interventions were few, and included text messaging reminders, chart reminders, and standing orders. CONCLUSIONS: In order to have an effective vaccination program, improvements in the uptake of recommended vaccines during pregnancy are needed. A maternal immunization platform is required that normalizes vaccination practice among obstetrical care providers and is supported by basic and continuing education, communication strategy, and a broad range of research.
Authors: Elyse Olshen Kharbanda; Celibell Y Vargas; Paula M Castaño; Marcos Lara; Raquel Andres; Melissa S Stockwell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: William E Trick; Edward S Linn; Zina Jones; Clay Caquelin; Romina Kee; Julia Y Morita Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Elizabeth A McCarthy; Wendy Elizabeth Pollock; Terry Nolan; Sarah Hay; Susan McDonald Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Gayatri Amirthalingam; Nick Andrews; Helen Campbell; Sonia Ribeiro; Edna Kara; Katherine Donegan; Norman K Fry; Elizabeth Miller; Mary Ramsay Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Donna M MacDougall; Beth A Halperin; Joanne M Langley; Shelly A McNeil; Donna MacKinnon-Cameron; Li Li; Scott A Halperin Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Sonali Kochhar; Kathryn M Edwards; Alba Maria Ropero Alvarez; Pedro L Moro; Justin R Ortiz Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Christine I Spina; Sarah E Brewer; Mallory K Ellingson; Allison T Chamberlain; Rupali J Limaye; Walter A Orenstein; Daniel A Salmon; Saad B Omer; Sean T O'Leary Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 4.169