A Consent Support Resource with Benefits and Harms of Vaccination Does Not Increase Hesitancy in Parents—An Acceptability Study

Abstract

It is unclear whether information given about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination during consent may cue parental vaccine hesitancy. Parents were surveyed before and after reading vaccine consent information at a public expo event in Sydney, Australia. We measured vaccine hesitancy with Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccine Short Scale (PACV-SS), informed decision-making with Informed Subscale of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS-IS), items from Stage of Decision Making, Positive Attitude Assessment, Vaccine Safety and Side Effect Concern, and Vaccine Communication Framework (VCF) tools. Overall, 416 parents showed no change in vaccine hesitancy (mean PACV-SS score pre = 1.97, post = 1.94; diff = −0.02 95% CI −0.10 to 0.15) but were more informed (mean DCS-IS score pre = 29.05, post = 7.41; diff = −21.63 95% CI −24.17 to −18.56), were more positive towards vaccination (pre = 43.8% post = 50.4%; diff = 6.5% 95% CI 3.0% to 10.0%), less concerned about vaccine safety (pre = 28.5%, post = 23.0%, diff = −5.6% 95% CI −2.3% to −8.8%) and side effects (pre = 37.0%, post = 29.0%, diff = −8.0% 95% CI −4.0% to −12.0%) with no change in stage of decision-making or intention to vaccinate. Providing information about the benefits and risks of routine childhood vaccination increases parents’ informed decision-making without increasing vaccine hesitancy.

Qualitative exploration of intentions, concerns and information needs of vaccine‐hesitant adults initially prioritised to receive COVID‐19 vaccines in Australia

“…Although there was little consensus in the workshops as to how best to present vaccine‐related risks, the participants highlighted the importance of discussing side effects and distinguishing between what is normal or expected and when to seek medical attention. Previous research has shown that providing balanced information about risks and benefits for childhood vaccines did not increase parental vaccine hesitancy, and indeed improved informed decision‐making 39 . Participants discussed a range of benefits associated with vaccination that may motivate others to vaccinate, from the direct prevention of disease to more indirect benefits like freedom of movement.…”

“…Previous research has shown that providing balanced information about risks and benefits for childhood vaccines did not increase parental vaccine hesitancy, and indeed improved informed decision‐making. 39 Participants discussed a range of benefits associated with vaccination that may motivate others to vaccinate, from the direct prevention of disease to more indirect benefits like freedom of movement. Research is mixed on the effectiveness of promoting COVID‐19 vaccines by communicating about herd immunity and community benefit, 40 , 41 while highlighting other benefits may help motivate some but not others (e.g.…”

Effect of persuasive messaging about COVID‐19 vaccines for 5‐ to 11‐year‐old children on parent intention to vaccinate

“…Following randomisation, parents provided demographic information (age, gender, highest level of education/training, geographic location, number and age of children) and indicated whether they had received their own second and third (booster) COVID‐19 vaccine doses. They responded to a single survey item assessing their degree of hesitancy towards COVID‐19 vaccines for children (‘I feel hesitant about COVID‐19 vaccines for children’ measured by a 5‐point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) 11,12 . Responses of strongly agree, slightly agree, and neither agree nor disagree were recoded as ‘hesitant’, while slightly disagree and strongly disagree were recoded as ‘not hesitant’.…”

“…They responded to a single survey item assessing their degree of hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines for children ('I feel hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines for children' measured by a 5-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree). 11,12 Responses of strongly agree, slightly agree, and neither agree nor disagree were recoded as 'hesitant', while slightly disagree and strongly disagree were recoded as 'not hesitant'.…”

The ethical impact of mandating childhood vaccination: The importance of the clinical encounter

“…Australia) which does not engage with questions concerning the possibility of autonomous consent in such systems. 35,36 This is partly because the work focuses too narrowly on information provision within informed consent, at the expense of the other aspects of the five-part process. This does a disservice to the ethical complexity of the issues and, importantly, to the value-based preferences of parents – which are only partly determined by information.…”