Joshua Karras1, Eve Dubé2, Margie Danchin3, Jessica Kaufman4, Holly Seale5. 1. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. 2. Direction des risques biologiques et de la santé au travail, Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec, Canada; Axe maladies infectieuses et immunitaires, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Canada. 3. Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children's Hospital, VIC, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, VIC, Australia. 4. Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, VIC, Australia; Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, VIC, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: h.seale@unsw.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing attention around the need to improve the confidence and skills of healthcare providers to assist them in completing the complex task of communicating to vaccine hesitant parents and other individuals. While interventions have been developed and evaluated in a research setting, there is uncertainty regarding the public availability. This study aimed to examine the current landscape regarding the availability of online dialogue- based interventions which aim to support vaccination conversations. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to identify and appraise the availability and accessibility of dialogue-based interventions. A dialogue-based intervention was defined as a strategy aiming to improve an individual's confidence and communication skills to engage with and respond to vaccine hesitant individuals. Two approaches were utilised to identify relevant interventions and resources. Firstly, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Catalogue of Interventions was assessed to identify interventions that met the definition. Secondarily, a Google search (in English only) was conducted using key words, that reflected the strategy that healthcare providers may use to identify resources. RESULTS: We identified a total of 31 dialogue-based interventions, of which 29 were reviewed. The interventions were all text based and instructional in nature. Twenty-two were suitable for healthcare providers, as well as non-clinical immunisation spokespersons to use. Of issue, was that in many instances it was common to find the resource located on the fifth to tenth page of search entries, and usually disguised under seemingly non-descript and nonspecific titles. Lastly, not all resources were available for free and not all could be accessed directly from the site. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that while there have been numerous interventions developed to support healthcare providers to communicate with vaccine hesitant parents/individuals, there are fundamental issues with accessing the materials in a timely and convenient way. Having a central repository or website (which links to the interventions) would not only assistant healthcare providers to have an improved comprehension of the different interventions available but also would theoretically increase the utilisation by providers.
BACKGROUND: There is growing attention around the need to improve the confidence and skills of healthcare providers to assist them in completing the complex task of communicating to vaccine hesitant parents and other individuals. While interventions have been developed and evaluated in a research setting, there is uncertainty regarding the public availability. This study aimed to examine the current landscape regarding the availability of online dialogue- based interventions which aim to support vaccination conversations. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to identify and appraise the availability and accessibility of dialogue-based interventions. A dialogue-based intervention was defined as a strategy aiming to improve an individual's confidence and communication skills to engage with and respond to vaccine hesitant individuals. Two approaches were utilised to identify relevant interventions and resources. Firstly, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Catalogue of Interventions was assessed to identify interventions that met the definition. Secondarily, a Google search (in English only) was conducted using key words, that reflected the strategy that healthcare providers may use to identify resources. RESULTS: We identified a total of 31 dialogue-based interventions, of which 29 were reviewed. The interventions were all text based and instructional in nature. Twenty-two were suitable for healthcare providers, as well as non-clinical immunisation spokespersons to use. Of issue, was that in many instances it was common to find the resource located on the fifth to tenth page of search entries, and usually disguised under seemingly non-descript and nonspecific titles. Lastly, not all resources were available for free and not all could be accessed directly from the site. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that while there have been numerous interventions developed to support healthcare providers to communicate with vaccine hesitant parents/individuals, there are fundamental issues with accessing the materials in a timely and convenient way. Having a central repository or website (which links to the interventions) would not only assistant healthcare providers to have an improved comprehension of the different interventions available but also would theoretically increase the utilisation by providers.