Mallory Ellingson1, Allison T Chamberlain2. 1. a Hubert Department of Global Health , Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University , Atlanta , GA , USA. 2. b Department of Epidemiology , Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prenatal providers are pregnant women's most trusted sources of health information, and a provider's recommendation is a strong predictor of maternal vaccine receipt. However, other ways women prefer receiving vaccine-related information from prenatal providers, aside from face-to-face conversations, is unclear. This study explores what secondary communication methods are preferred for receiving maternal vaccine-related information. STUDY DESIGN: Obstetric patients at four prenatal clinics around Atlanta, Georgia received a 27-item survey between May 5th, 2016 and June 15th, 2016. Participants were asked about sources they currently use to obtain prenatal health information and their preferences for receiving vaccine-related information from providers. Descriptive statistics were calculated and chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Women primarily reported using the CDC website (57.7%) and pregnancy-related websites (53.0%) to obtain vaccine information. Apart from clinical conversations, educational brochures (64.9%) and e-mails (54.7%) were the preferred methods of receiving vaccine information from providers, followed by their provider's practice website (42.1%). Communication preferences and interest in maternal immunization varied by race/ethnicity, age and education; white women were twice as likely to want information on a provider's practice website compared to African-American women (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.31, 3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women use the Internet for information about vaccines, but they still value input from their providers. While e-mails and brochures were the preferred secondary modes of receiving information, a provider's existing practice website offers a potential communications medium that capitalizes on women's information seeking behaviors and preferences while limiting burden on providers.
OBJECTIVE: Prenatal providers are pregnant women's most trusted sources of health information, and a provider's recommendation is a strong predictor of maternal vaccine receipt. However, other ways women prefer receiving vaccine-related information from prenatal providers, aside from face-to-face conversations, is unclear. This study explores what secondary communication methods are preferred for receiving maternal vaccine-related information. STUDY DESIGN: Obstetric patients at four prenatal clinics around Atlanta, Georgia received a 27-item survey between May 5th, 2016 and June 15th, 2016. Participants were asked about sources they currently use to obtain prenatal health information and their preferences for receiving vaccine-related information from providers. Descriptive statistics were calculated and chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS:Women primarily reported using the CDC website (57.7%) and pregnancy-related websites (53.0%) to obtain vaccine information. Apart from clinical conversations, educational brochures (64.9%) and e-mails (54.7%) were the preferred methods of receiving vaccine information from providers, followed by their provider's practice website (42.1%). Communication preferences and interest in maternal immunization varied by race/ethnicity, age and education; white women were twice as likely to want information on a provider's practice website compared to African-American women (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.31, 3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women use the Internet for information about vaccines, but they still value input from their providers. While e-mails and brochures were the preferred secondary modes of receiving information, a provider's existing practice website offers a potential communications medium that capitalizes on women's information seeking behaviors and preferences while limiting burden on providers.
Authors: Barbra M Fisher; Janice Scott; Jan Hart; Virginia D Winn; Ronald S Gibbs; Anne M Lynch Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Indu B Ahluwalia; Denise J Jamieson; Sonja A Rasmussen; Denise D'Angelo; David Goodman; Hanna Kim Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Margaret M Cortese; Andrew L Baughman; Rongping Zhang; Pamela U Srivastava; Gregory S Wallace Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Théophile Baïssas; Florence Boisnard; Inmaculada Cuesta Esteve; Marta Garcia Sánchez; Christine E Jones; Thierry Rigoine de Fougerolles; Litjen Tan; Olivier Vitoux; Christina Klein Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.295
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