Allison T Chamberlain1, Katherine Seib2, Kevin A Ault3, Eli S Rosenberg1, Paula M Frew4, Marielysse Cortes5, Ellen A S Whitney1, Ruth L Berkelman1, Walter A Orenstein2, Saad B Omer5. 1. a Department of Epidemiology , Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University , Atlanta , GA , USA. 2. b Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine , Emory University , Atlanta , GA , USA. 3. c Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine , Emory University , Atlanta , GA , USA. 4. d Department of Medicine , Division of Infectious Diseases , Decatur , GA , USA. 5. e Hubert Department of Global Health , Rollins School of Public Health , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding whether interventions designed to improve antenatal vaccine uptake also change women's knowledge about vaccination is critical for improving vaccine coverage. This exploratory study evaluates the effectiveness of a multi-component influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine promotion package on improving women's knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: In 2012/2013 a cluster-randomized trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of a vaccine promotion package on improving antenatal vaccine coverage. Participants included 325 unvaccinated pregnant women from 11 obstetric practices in Georgia. Eleven health beliefs measures were assessed at baseline and 2-3 months post-partum. Outcomes were differences in proportions of women citing favorable responses to each measure between study groups at follow-up. RESULTS: Women enrolled in their third trimester had a higher probability of asking family members to vaccinate to protect the infant if they were in the intervention group versus the control group (36% vs. 22%; risk ratio [RR] = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 2.26). A similar association was not observed among women enrolled before their third trimester (39% vs. 44%; RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.73). There were no other significant differences at follow-up between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: While exposure to the intervention package may have raised awareness that vaccinating close contacts can protect an infant, there is little evidence that the package changed women's attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. Future research should ensure adequate exposure to the intervention and consider study design aspects including power to assess changes in secondary outcomes, discriminatory power of response options, and social desirability bias. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, study ID NCT01761799.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Understanding whether interventions designed to improve antenatal vaccine uptake also change women's knowledge about vaccination is critical for improving vaccine coverage. This exploratory study evaluates the effectiveness of a multi-component influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine promotion package on improving women's knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: In 2012/2013 a cluster-randomized trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of a vaccine promotion package on improving antenatal vaccine coverage. Participants included 325 unvaccinated pregnant women from 11 obstetric practices in Georgia. Eleven health beliefs measures were assessed at baseline and 2-3 months post-partum. Outcomes were differences in proportions of women citing favorable responses to each measure between study groups at follow-up. RESULTS:Women enrolled in their third trimester had a higher probability of asking family members to vaccinate to protect the infant if they were in the intervention group versus the control group (36% vs. 22%; risk ratio [RR] = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 2.26). A similar association was not observed among women enrolled before their third trimester (39% vs. 44%; RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.73). There were no other significant differences at follow-up between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: While exposure to the intervention package may have raised awareness that vaccinating close contacts can protect an infant, there is little evidence that the package changed women's attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. Future research should ensure adequate exposure to the intervention and consider study design aspects including power to assess changes in secondary outcomes, discriminatory power of response options, and social desirability bias. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, study ID NCT01761799.
Authors: Philip J Smith; Sharon G Humiston; Edgar K Marcuse; Zhen Zhao; Christina G Dorell; Cynthia Howes; Beth Hibbs Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Melissa S Stockwell; Carolyn Westhoff; Elyse Olshen Kharbanda; Celibell Y Vargas; Stewin Camargo; David K Vawdrey; Paula M Castaño Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Allison T Chamberlain; Katherine Seib; Kevin A Ault; Walter A Orenstein; Paula M Frew; Fauzia Malik; Marielysse Cortés; Pat Cota; Ellen A S Whitney; Lisa C Flowers; Ruth L Berkelman; Saad B Omer Journal: PLoS Curr Date: 2015-02-25
Authors: Paula M Frew; Laura A Randall; Fauzia Malik; Rupali J Limaye; Andrew Wilson; Sean T O'Leary; Daniel Salmon; Meghan Donnelly; Kevin Ault; Matthew Z Dudley; Vincent L Fenimore; Saad B Omer Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jennifer L Kriss; Paula M Frew; Marielysse Cortes; Fauzia A Malik; Allison T Chamberlain; Katherine Seib; Lisa Flowers; Kevin A Ault; Penelope P Howards; Walter A Orenstein; Saad B Omer Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Mallory K Ellingson; Matthew Z Dudley; Rupali J Limaye; Daniel A Salmon; Sean T O'Leary; Saad B Omer Journal: Expert Rev Vaccines Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 5.217
Authors: Anna Larson Williams; Lois McCloskey; Magdalene Mwale; Lawrence Mwananyanda; Kenya Murray; Augusta R Herman; Donald M Thea; William B MacLeod; Christopher J Gill Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 3.641