ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to better understand parental trust in and satisfaction with information sources and medical providers regarding decision making about childhood vaccines.SettingThe study was part of a Swiss national research programme investigating vaccine hesitancy and underimmunisation.ParticipantsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 37 providers and 30 parents, observed 34 vaccination consultations, and then conducted quantitative surveys with 130 providers (both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) oriented and biomedically oriented) and 1390 parents.Main outcome measuresParticipants’ vaccination information sources used in their decision-making process, parents’ trust in and satisfaction with these sources and providers.ResultsBased on the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines scale, we considered 501 parents as vaccine-hesitant (VH) and 889 parents as non-VH. Whereas both groups mentioned providers as the most trusted source of information, VH-parents were less likely to mention paediatricians (N=358 (71%) vs N=755 (85%)) and public health authorities (N=101 (20%) vs N=333 (37%)) than non-VH-parents. VH-parents were more likely to have consulted another provider (N=196 (39%) vs N=173 (19%)) than non-VH-parents, to express less satisfaction with both their primary (N=342 (82%) vs N=586 (91%)) and other providers (N=82 (42%) vs N=142 (82%)) and less trust in their primary (N=368 (88%) vs N=632 (98%)) and other providers (N=108 (55%) vs N=146 (84%)). VH-parents were less likely to be satisfied with their biomedical primary provider than non-VH-parents (100 (69%) vs 467 (91%)). However, when the primary provider was CAM-oriented, there were similar levels of satisfaction among both groups (237 (89%) VH-parents vs 118 (89%) non-VH-parents). All differences were significant (p<0.05).ConclusionsWhile the provider remains the main information source, VH parents turn to additional sources and providers, which is likely related to VH parents being rather dissatisfied with and distrusting in obtained information and their provider.EthicsThe local ethics committee (Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz, EKNZ; project ID number 2017-00725) approved the study.

Novel strategies are needed to address vaccine hesitancy (VH), which correlates with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In Switzerland, CAM providers play important roles in vaccine counseling of vaccine hesitant (VH) parents, and traditional vaccination messaging tends to overlook CAM provider perspectives. In the setting of a Swiss national research program on VH, our key strategy has been to work together closely with CAM providers. To assess the feasibility of generating educational human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine materials that would interest VH healthcare providers (HCPs), we invited four CAM providers to co-author two HPV vaccine review articles for general practitioners. We conducted thematic analysis of CAM provider comments to identify patterns that could complement and improve vaccination messaging from CAM perspectives. We identified several themes and generated an inventory of CAM provider messaging recommendations related to language use, presentation of background information, nuanced statements regarding HPV vaccine efficacy and safety, and communication tools that would be important to VH HCPs. Contrary to our initial expectations, and in an inclusive, respectful atmosphere of open dialogue, we were able to productively finalize our manuscripts. In the opinion of the CAM co-authors, the manuscripts effectively considered the communication needs and perspectives of VH HCPs. Engaging with CAM providers appears to be a feasible and innovative avenue for providing vaccine information and designing communication tools aimed at VH healthcare providers.

No abstract

Pendant combien de temps les patient.e.s COVID-19 sont-ils contagieux.eses?

No abstract