| Literature DB >> 31651307 |
Stacy W Nganga1, Nancy A Otieno2, Maxwell Adero2, Dominic Ouma2, Sandra S Chaves3, Jennifer R Verani3, Marc-Alain Widdowson3, Andrew Wilson1, Irina Bergenfeld1, Courtni Andrews1, Vincent L Fenimore1,4, Ines Gonzalez-Casanova5, Paula M Frew1,4,6,7,8, Saad B Omer1,9,10, Fauzia A Malik1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women and newborns are at high risk for infectious diseases. Altered immunity status during pregnancy and challenges fully vaccinating newborns contribute to this medical reality. Maternal immunization is a strategy to protect pregnant women and their newborns. This study aimed to find out how patient-provider relationships affect maternal vaccine uptake, particularly in the context of a lower middle- income country where limited research in this area exists.Entities:
Keywords: Attitudes; Developing countries; Health care providers; Kenya; Maternal immunization; Pregnant women
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31651307 PMCID: PMC6813986 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4537-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Site Descriptions
| Site | Description |
|---|---|
| Mombasa | A major tourist area, Mombasa is located in the south east of Kenya and represents a semi urban setting. Accessibility to healthcare facilities differs on proximity to Mombasa town; Health facilities included Coast General Provincial Hospital (a KEMRI/ CDC influenza site). It is the second largest public hospital in Kenya with a bed capacity of 672. There are about 80 healthcare staff members working in child and maternal health. In 2015, the maternal clinic saw 1882 new patients and 4226 returning patients. This hospital is part of the influenza surveillance platforms. |
| Nairobi | As the capital city of Kenya, Nairobi represents the urban setting. Accessibility to different types of health facilities (private/ public) is higher in Nairobi than anywhere else in the country. Health facilities included Mbagathi District Hospital which is located in Nairobi right next to KEMRI and CDC Kenya. This hospital has a bed capacity of 320. There are about 53 healthcare workers handling maternal and children issues. The average number of pregnant women seen per month at the hospital is 500. |
| Marsabit | Located in Northern Kenya, it is a hard to reach and sparsely populated area. It is the most unique of all four locations as it is primarily composed of a nomadic community. Accessibility to any health care facilities is poor. Health facilities included Marsabit District Hospital which is located in the north Eastern part of Kenya. The hospital has a capacity of 86 beds. This location allowed the team to access a different population seen at the other hospitals. |
| Siaya | Located in Western Kenya and close to Kisumu, Siaya represents the rural setting. Accessibility to healthcare facilities differs depending on proximity to Kisumu which is another major city in Kenya. Health facilities included Siaya County Referral Hospital which serves a large number of rural and low social economic patients. The bed capacity is 200. There are 26 health care workers within the maternal clinic that care for and see about 300 to 400 new and returning pregnant women. It is located about 72 Km from The Centre for Global Health Research at KEMRI Kisumu Field Station |
Interview Protocol
Pregnant women: pregnant women waiting for their scheduled antenatal care visits at the clinics were approached by research members and asked if they willing to participate in the study. If they were willing, they were taken to a private room/office designated by the hospital for confidential consenting and interviewing. After allowing time for consent review and answering questions, the study team recorded each interview. • Inclusion criteria: Women aged 15–40 · Women in any trimester; Patient at health facility included in the study; Be willing to converse with others in a focus group format (only for message testing phase); Able to provide informed consent (If participant is illiterate, procedures to ensure full understanding of the research and consent process will be implemented according to international and federal guidelines). • Exclusion criteria: have previously participated in this study; Those who do not or cannot provide consent; Failure to meet other inclusion criteria. • Interview Topics: Interview guide for women included discussions on the following topics: (a) have they had a checkup in the last year; (b) have they received any vaccines that they can recall; (c) if they have received vaccines, they will be asked about their understanding of the vaccines they received [e.g., do they know what the vaccine prevents against, did they get the vaccine just because their parent/doctor told them to]; (d) comfort discussing sensitive topics with their doctor and parents; (e) awareness of maternal vaccines; (f) information from peers about maternal vaccines [friends’ vaccination status, anecdotal side effects, discussions on social media, reasons to get it/not get it]; (g) discussions with parents/guardians about maternal vaccines; and (h) motivating factors to be vaccinated. | |
HCPs: providers working at the antenatal care were contacted ahead of time to arrange interviews for times that would work best for them. During this phase of data collection, HCP were on a nationwide strike. To mitigate the effects of delayed data collection, study team members organized interviews outside of clinic. • Inclusion Criteria: Currently working at the selected study sites; Current physician, nurse, nurse midwife, community health worker; Able to provide informed consent. • Exclusion Criteria: Those who do not or cannot provide consent; Failure to meet other inclusion criteria. • Interview Topics: The semi-structured interview guide for providers included discussions on the following topics: (a) proportion of patients they estimate have received or refused maternal vaccines; (b) times at which they recommend maternal vaccine; (c) practices regarding immunization history verification (e.g. immunization information system); (d) barriers or reasons for refusal cited by parents/patients; (e) perceived ability and methods used to address these barriers/refusals; (f) comfort discussing vaccine recommendations with their patients; (g) existing efforts of reminder/recall for maternal vaccinations; and (h) knowledge of Tdap vaccine effectiveness and safety. | |
| Participant observation and Facility Profiles: Non-structured observation of pregnant women and HCPs were also conducted within the clinic. The research staff took detailed field notes to examine patient-administration, patient-patient, patient-provider relationships, dynamics of provider-government officials, and provider-provider, provider-patient, and provider-administration interactions within each of the selected sites. Interview notes and observations notes were used to edit the guide as needed. Notes about each facility, e.g. patient flow, vaccine storage and supply chain, etc. were also typed up over the course of interviews. |
Patient trust and views on patient autonomy – HCP Perspective
| Subtheme | Quote |
|---|---|
| Expressed Trust |
|
| Respect for autonomy |
|
| Authoritative approach |
|
| Sources of trust | |
| 1. Education |
|
| 2. Altruism |
|
Provider Attitudes towards patients (approachability)
| Subtheme | Quote |
|---|---|
| HCP Perspective | |
| Impact of attitudes towards patients |
|
| Evolution of patient-provider relationship |
|
| Patient’s desire for information |
|
| Effect of Time -constraints on education |
|
| Pregnant women perspective | |
| Importance of provider attitudes on trust as expressed by facility choice |
|
| Accessibility |
|
Patient Health Education
| Subtheme | Quote |
|---|---|
| HCP Perspective | |
| Effects of myths and misconceptions (“Rumor mill’) |
|
| Education as a tool for demand creation and reinforcing/ building trust |
“
|
| Community buy-in |
|
| Pregnant women perspective | |
| Effects of myths and misconceptions |
|
| Importance of education on vaccine acceptance |
|
| Desire for health education |
|
| Fear of reproach |
|
| Time constraints |
|
Expressed patient trust - Pregnant women perspective
| Subtheme | Quote |
|---|---|
| Explicit trust |
|
| Direct impact of trust on acceptance |
|
Reasons for trust 1. Respect for provider’s education 2. Government authority 3. Belief in provider’s altruistic motives |
|
| Preference for public hospitals |
|