No abstract

BackgroundParents’ vaccine attitudes influence their decision regarding child vaccination. To date, no study has evaluated the impact of vaccine conspiracy beliefs on human papillomavirus vaccine acceptance. The authors assessed the validity of a Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale (VCBS) and determined whether this scale was associated with parents’ willingness to vaccinate their son with the HPV vaccine.MethodsCanadian parents completed a 24-min online survey in 2014. Measures included socio-demographic variables, HPV knowledge, health care provider recommendation, Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ), the seven-item VCBS, and parents’ willingness to vaccinate their son at two price points.ResultsA total of 1427 Canadian parents completed the survey in English (61.2%) or French (38.8%). A Factor Analysis revealed the VCBS is one-dimensional and has high internal consistency (α=0.937). The construct validity of the VCBS was supported by a moderate relationship with the CMQ (r=0.44, p<0.001). Hierarchical regression analyses found the VCBS is negatively related to parents’ willingness to vaccinate their son with the HPV vaccine at both price points (‘free’ or ‘$300′) after controlling for gender, age, household income, education level, HPV knowledge, and health care provider recommendation.ConclusionsThe VCBS is a brief, valid scale that will be useful in further elucidating the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. Future research could use the VCBS to evaluate the impact of vaccine conspiracies beliefs on vaccine uptake and how concerns about vaccination may be challenged and reversed.

The purpose of this paper was to determine if providing patient specific Quality of Life (QL) information to clinic staff before a clinic appointment improved patient care in a lung cancer outpatient clinic. Patients were sequentially assigned to either a usual care control group or the experimental group, which completed a computerized version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire in order to provide the clinic staff with QL information prior to the clinic appointment. The control group completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 paper version after the clinic appointment. Outcome measures were patient satisfaction, the degree to which issues identified on the QL questionnaire were addressed in the appointment, and a chart audit, which measured charting of QL issues and actions taken by the clincian relating to QL. In the experimental group, more QL issues identified by the patient on the EORTC QLQ-C30 were addressed during the clinic appointment than in the control group. As well, marginally more categories were charted and a trend towards more actions being taken was seen in the experimental group. Patients reported being equally and highly satisfied with the treatment in both groups. The clinical implication is that the computerized administration of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and providing staff with a report highlighting patientspecific QL deficits is a simple, time-effective and acceptable means of improving patient -provider communication in a busy outpatient clinic. Large trials studying its effectiveness in different patient populations and regions would further elucidate the nature of this effect and potentially improve the overall quality of care that patients receive.

These results are conceptually consistent with both the Health Belief Model and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of health promotion and are useful in informing HCPs on how to better promote SB.