Kim A G J Romijnders1, Stephne L van Seventer2, Manon Scheltema3, Liesbeth van Osch4, Hein de Vries5, Liesbeth Mollema6. 1. Centre for Health Protection (GZB), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, the Netherlands; Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: kim.romijnders@rivm.nl. 2. Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: stephne@live.nl. 3. Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.b.scheltema@student.vu.nl. 4. Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: liesbeth.vanosch@maaschtrichtuniversity.nl. 5. Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: hein.devries@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 6. Centre for Infectious Diseases (CIB), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. Electronic address: liesbeth.mollema@rivm.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In light of the decline in childhood vaccination coverage, the question rises concerning what factors play a role in informed decision-making about childhood vaccination. Insight into factors related to this decision helps us to support parents' informed decision-making about childhood vaccination. METHOD: We conducted 12 semi-structured focus group interviews across the Netherlands based on a definition of informed decision-making: three with acceptors, three with refusers, and six with partial acceptors to ask about knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, and information needs. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Acceptors viewed the decision to participate in the National Immunization Program (NIP) as self-evident. Refusers and partial acceptors, however, reported to extensively deliberate the pros and cons of accepting or refusing the NIP in much detail. Their answers indicated that their knowledge was not always evidence-based. In addition, refusers and partial acceptors perceived fewer risks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), more risks of side-effects of vaccines, less social support from their environment, less trust in child welfare centers (CWCs), and information provided than acceptors. CONCLUSION: We observed distinct differences in factors related to decision-making about childhood vaccination between acceptors, refusers, and partial acceptors. Acceptors in the current study perceived accepting childhood vaccinations as self-evident, refusers relied mostly on anecdotal information rather than evidence-based information to weigh up the pros and cons vaccines and the VPDs, and partial acceptors elaborately deliberated the pros and cons of each vaccine and VPD individually, which was time-consuming and difficult. To strengthen and support decision-making among parents, more elaborate dialogues are needed between Child Vaccine Providers (CVPs) and parents. These discussions could build trust between parents and CVPs, be used to discuss the evidence-based advantages of childhood vaccinations, and to decrease parents' susceptibility to anecdotal information and misperceptions about childhood vaccinations shared by other parents.
OBJECTIVE: In light of the decline in childhood vaccination coverage, the question rises concerning what factors play a role in informed decision-making about childhood vaccination. Insight into factors related to this decision helps us to support parents' informed decision-making about childhood vaccination. METHOD: We conducted 12 semi-structured focus group interviews across the Netherlands based on a definition of informed decision-making: three with acceptors, three with refusers, and six with partial acceptors to ask about knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, and information needs. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Acceptors viewed the decision to participate in the National Immunization Program (NIP) as self-evident. Refusers and partial acceptors, however, reported to extensively deliberate the pros and cons of accepting or refusing the NIP in much detail. Their answers indicated that their knowledge was not always evidence-based. In addition, refusers and partial acceptors perceived fewer risks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), more risks of side-effects of vaccines, less social support from their environment, less trust in child welfare centers (CWCs), and information provided than acceptors. CONCLUSION: We observed distinct differences in factors related to decision-making about childhood vaccination between acceptors, refusers, and partial acceptors. Acceptors in the current study perceived accepting childhood vaccinations as self-evident, refusers relied mostly on anecdotal information rather than evidence-based information to weigh up the pros and cons vaccines and the VPDs, and partial acceptors elaborately deliberated the pros and cons of each vaccine and VPD individually, which was time-consuming and difficult. To strengthen and support decision-making among parents, more elaborate dialogues are needed between Child Vaccine Providers (CVPs) and parents. These discussions could build trust between parents and CVPs, be used to discuss the evidence-based advantages of childhood vaccinations, and to decrease parents' susceptibility to anecdotal information and misperceptions about childhood vaccinations shared by other parents.
Authors: Bethany M Kwan; Jennifer Pyrzanowski; Carter Sevick; Nicole M Wagner; Kenneth Resnicow; Jason M Glanz; Amanda F Dempsey Journal: Appl Psychol Health Well Being Date: 2021-08-16
Authors: Sara Cooper; Bey-Marrié Schmidt; Evanson Z Sambala; Alison Swartz; Christopher J Colvin; Natalie Leon; Charles S Wiysonge Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Veja Widdershoven; Rianne P Reijs; Amanja Verhaegh-Haasnoot; Robert A C Ruiter; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.667
Authors: Marta Fadda; Kleona Bezani; Rebecca Amati; Maddalena Fiordelli; Luca Crivelli; Emiliano Albanese; L Suzanne Suggs; Maria Caiata-Zufferey Journal: SSM Qual Res Health Date: 2022-10-14
Authors: Hein de Vries; Wouter Verputten; Christian Preissner; Gerjo Kok Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390