scholarly journals Determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland: study protocol of a mixed-methods national research programme

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Deml ◽  
Kristen Jafflin ◽  
Sonja Merten ◽  
Benedikt Huber ◽  
Andrea Buhl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Public Health Issue ◽  
Sociocultural Factors ◽  
Moral Foundations ◽  
Religion And Spirituality ◽  
Medical Providers ◽  
National Research Programme

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy is a complex public health issue referring to concerns about the safety, efficacy or need for vaccination. Relatively little is known about vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland. This ongoing study (2017–2021) focuses on biomedical and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers and their patients since healthcare professionals play important roles in vaccination decision-making. This national research programme seeks to assess the sociocultural determinants of vaccine hesitancy regarding childhood and human papillomavirus vaccines in Switzerland. We aim to provide a detailed characterisation of vaccine hesitancy, including CAM and biomedical perspectives, patient–provider interactions, and sociocultural factors, to establish the mediating effects of vaccine hesitancy on underimmunisation, and to design an intervention to improve vaccination communication and counselling among physicians, parents and adolescents.Methods and analysisOur transdisciplinary team employs a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study design. We have established a network of more than 150 medical providers across Switzerland, including more than 40 CAM practitioners. For the qualitative component, we conduct interviews with parents, youth, and biomedical and CAM providers and observations of vaccination consultations and school vaccination information sessions. For the quantitative component, a sample of 1350 parents of young children and 722 young adults (15–26 years) and their medical providers respond to questionnaires. We measure vaccine hesitancy with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines 15-item survey and review vaccination certificates to assess vaccination status. We administer additional questions based on findings from qualitative research, addressing communication with medical providers, vaccine information sources and perceptions of risk control vis-à-vis vaccine-preventable diseases. The questionnaires capture sociodemographics, political views, religion and spirituality, and moral foundations.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the local ethics committee. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to healthcare professionals, researchers and the public via conferences and public presentations.

scholarly journals A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Barriers to and Facilitators of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Among Adolescents in Montana

2020 ◽  
Vol 135 (6) ◽  
pp. 842-850
Author(s):  
Sophia R. Newcomer ◽  
James Caringi ◽  
Beth Jones ◽  
Emily Coyle ◽  
Timothy Schehl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Medical Providers ◽  
Medical Provider ◽  
Vaccination Rates

Objectives Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates among adolescents are lower in rural areas than in urban areas of the United States. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of adolescent HPV vaccination in Montana, a large, primarily rural state. Methods Using a mixed-methods design, we integrated quantitative analyses of Montana’s National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen) data from 2013-2017 with qualitative data collected at a statewide meeting in October 2018 and from stakeholder interviews conducted from October 2018 through June 2019. Using NIS-Teen data, we identified trends and estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake. Using directed content analysis of qualitative data, we identified themes related to vaccine uptake. Results In Montana, initiation of the HPV vaccine series among adolescents aged 13-17 increased from 34.4% in 2013 to 65.5% in 2017. We identified 6 themes related to HPV vaccination from qualitative analyses, including medical providers’ recommendation style as a facilitator of vaccination and parental vaccine hesitancy as a barrier to vaccination. In NIS-Teen 2017 data (n = 326 adolescents), receiving a medical provider recommendation was significantly associated with series initiation (aPR = 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.6). Among parents who did not intend to initiate the vaccine series for their adolescent within 12 months (n = 71), vaccine safety was the top concern (aPR = 24.5%; 95% CI, 12.1%-36.9%). Conclusions HPV vaccination rates have increased in Montana but remain lower than rates for other adolescent vaccines. Future work should focus on reducing missed opportunities, increasing parents’ knowledge of and confidence in vaccination, and training medical providers on addressing common vaccine concerns.

Habits-GDM mobile application in managing gestational diabetes in Singapore: A mixed-methods study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shilpa Surendran ◽  
Chang Siang Lim ◽  
Gerald Choon Huat Koh ◽  
Tong Wei Yew ◽  
E Shyong Tai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Automatic Data ◽  
Glucose Testing ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BACKGROUND The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing in Singapore and the cost of providing traditional care for GDM is high. Mobile health (mHealth) applications may act as useful tools in the management of GDM. OBJECTIVE The objective of this mixed-methods study was to measure the usage behaviour and explore users’ perceived usefulness of the Habits-GDM application when managing GDM in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS We conducted a quantitative analysis of the application usage behaviour in 170 Habits-GDM application users and 14 semi-structured interviews with users from a randomised controlled trial. RESULTS The convenience of automatic data transfer of weight values to the Habits-GDM application helped users (116/170, 68%) log their weight at least once a week. However, when the application had usability challenges, users avoided using that feature, i.e. users logged only an average of less than one meal/week out of the recommended six meals/week. Of the usability challenges, many users (12/14, 85.7%) mentioned food items not worded in the commonly known way and limited ethnic food database as the primary barriers. Only half of the users (84/170, 49.4%) accessed the educational lessons, but many (9/14, 64%) identified the provision of always available, valuable health-related information as an advantage of the educational lessons. ‘Healthy eating’ and ‘Why exercise’ were the most (56/84, 66.67%) and least (38/84, 45.24%) frequently accessed educational lessons, respectively. Users (10/14, 71.4%) reported sending messages to the coach via the chat interface only when they faced logistic issues and 86.45% of all the coach messages were replies typed by the research coordinator in response to the logistics issues (i.e. a request for blood glucose testing strips and appointment confirmation) raised by the users. Healthcare professionals lack of access to the coach’s dashboard discouraged users from asking queries related to GDM via the e-coaching feature. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that mHealth application acts as a useful tool in managing GDM. Culturally sensitive mHealth applications with a provision for women to interact with healthcare professionals should be developed in cooperation with the users. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable.

scholarly journals Electronic patient record and its effects on social aspects of interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows in hospitals (eCoCo): a mixed methods study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Beckmann ◽  
Kerstin Dittmer ◽  
Julia Jaschke ◽  
Ute Karbach ◽  
Juliane Köberlein-Neu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Interprofessional Collaboration ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
Electronic Patient Records ◽  
Daily Work ◽  
Network Analyses

Abstract Background The need for and usage of electronic patient records within hospitals has steadily increased over the last decade for economic reasons as well as the proceeding digitalization. While there are numerous benefits from this system, the potential risks of using electronic patient records for hospitals, patients and healthcare professionals must also be discussed. There is a lack in research, particularly regarding effects on healthcare professionals and their daily work in health services. The study eCoCo aims to gain insight into changes in interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows resulting from introducing electronic patient records. Methods eCoCo is a multi-center case study integrating mixed methods from qualitative and quantitative social research. The case studies include three hospitals that undergo the process of introducing electronic patient records. Data are collected before and after the introduction of electronic patient records using participant observation, interviews, focus groups, time measurement, patient and employee questionnaires and a questionnaire to measure the level of digitalization. Furthermore, documents (patient records) as well as structural and administrative data are gathered. To analyze the interprofessional collaboration qualitative network analyses, reconstructive-hermeneutic analyses and document analyses are conducted. The workflow analyses, patient and employee assessment analyses and classification within the clinical adoption meta-model are conducted to provide insights into clinical workflows. Discussion This study will be the first to investigate the effects of introducing electronic patient records on interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows from the perspective of healthcare professionals. Thereby, it will consider patients’ safety, legal and ethical concerns and quality of care. The results will help to understand the organization and thereby improve the performance of health services working with electronic patient records. Trial registration The study was registered at the German clinical trials register (DRKS00023343, Pre-Results) on November 17, 2020.

Balancing benefits and potential risks of vaccination: the precautionary principle and the law of unintended consequences

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111773
Author(s):  
David Robert Grimes
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Public Health Issue ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Risk And Benefit

Vaccination is a life-saving endeavour, yet risk and uncertainty are unavoidable in science and medicine. Vaccination remains contentious in the public mind, and vaccine hesitancy is a serious public health issue. This has recently been reignited in the discussion over potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, and the decision by several countries to suspend measures such as the AstraZeneca vaccine. In these instances, the precautionary principle has often been invoked as a rationale, yet such heuristics do not adequately weigh potential harms against real benefits. How we analyse, communicate and react to potential harms is absolutely paramount to ensure the best decisions and outcomes for societal health, and maintaining public confidence. While balancing benefits and risks is an essential undertaking, it cannot be achieved without due consideration of several other pertinent factors, especially in the context of vaccination, where misguided or exaggerated fears have in the past imperilled public health. While well meaning, over reactions to potential hazards of vaccination and other health interventions can have unintended consequences, and cause lingering damage to public trust. In this analysis, we explore the challenges of assessing risk and benefit, and the limitations of the precautionary principle in these endeavours. When risk is unclear, cautious vigilance might be a more pragmatic and useful policy than reactionary suspensions.

scholarly journals Research protocol for the exploration of experiences of Aboriginal Australian mothers and healthcare professionals when using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: a process-oriented validation study using triangulated participatory mixed methods

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ai Wen Chan ◽  
Petra Skeffington ◽  
Corinne Reid ◽  
Rhonda Marriott
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Research Protocol ◽  
Process Oriented

IntroductionAdopting a process-oriented framework for test validation can help to establish whether this tool has the potential to be an acceptable, valid and reliable indicator of depression for mothers and mothers-to-be. This mixed-methods research protocol seeks to explore the views and experiences of Aboriginal mothers and healthcare professionals in relation to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and is intended to highlight potential barriers in perinatal mental health conceptualisation, engagement and response style.Methods and analysisThematic analysis will be applied to interview transcripts of Aboriginal Australian mothers (n=6+) and healthcare professionals (n=6+) to identify key themes. The process-focused validation model will use narratives about experiences of using the EPDS as the priority point of analysis. Item-level data and process-level (experience) data are key phenomenological data. The interview-based narratives will be then compared with EPDS scores to check for points of congruence and divergence. This will be done at two time points, antenatally and postnatally, to assess changes in assessment processes and perceptions. Bridging evidence-based research with clinical practice in an Aboriginal Australian context will be facilitated by an investigation of the perceived cultural relevance and likely clinical effectiveness of EPDS. Such evidence is critical to understanding whether the EPDS fulfils its intended purpose. The guiding principles in designing this research protocol is to benefit the well-being of young Aboriginal families and communities through partnership with Aboriginal women.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Human Research Ethics Committee of Murdoch University and from Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (WAAHEC). Participating healthcare sites and services have provided letters of support. Results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical imaging guidelines by healthcare professionals using theoretical domains framework: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BJR|Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 20210004
Author(s):  
Harriet Nalubega Kisembo ◽  
Ritah Nassanga ◽  
Faith Ameda Ameda ◽  
Moses Ocan ◽  
Alison A Kinengyere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Imaging

Objectives: To identify, categorize, and develop an aggregated synthesis of evidence using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) on barriers and facilitators that influence implementation of clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in diagnostic imaging Methods: The protocol will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews and will adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-P). Information source will include databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library), internet search (https://www.google.com/scholar), experts’ opinion, professional societies/organizations websites and government bodies strategies/recommendations, and reference lists of included studies. Articles of any study design published in English from 1990 to date, having investigated factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation CIGs by HCPs will be eligible. Selecting, appraising, and extracting data from the included studies will be independently performed by at least two reviewers using validated tools and Rayyan – Systematic Review web application. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer as a tie breaker. The aggregated studies will be synthesized using thematic analysis guided by TDF. Results: Identified barriers will be defined a priori and mapped into 7 TDF domains including knowledge, awareness, effectiveness, time, litigationand financial incentives Conclusion: The results will provide an insight into a theory-based approach to predict behavior-related determinants for implementing CIGs and develop strategies/interventions to target the elicited behaviors. Recommendations will be made if the level of evidence is sufficient Advances in knowledge: Resource-constrained settings that are in the process of adopting CIGs may opt for this strategy to predict in advance likely impediments to achieving the goal of CIG implementation and develop tailored interventions during the planning phase. Systematic review Registration: PROSPERO ID = CRD42020136372 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative . A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Mixed-methods evaluation of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service for paediatric rare diseases: study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Celine Lewis ◽  
James Buchannan ◽  
Angus Clarke ◽  
Emma Clement ◽  
Bettina Friedrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Genomic Medicine ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Genomic Testing ◽  
Medicine Service ◽  
Recommendations For Practice

Background: A new nationally commissioned NHS England Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was recently established to deliver genomic testing with equity of access for patients affected by rare diseases and cancer. The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate the implementation of the GMS during its early years, identify barriers and enablers to successful implementation, and provide recommendations for practice. The focus will be on the use of genomic testing for paediatric rare diseases. Methods: This will be a four-year mixed-methods research programme using clinic observations, interviews and surveys. Study 1 consists of qualitative interviews with designers/implementers of the GMS in Year 1 of the research programme, along with documentary analysis to understand the intended outcomes for the Service. These will be revisited in Year 4 to compare intended outcomes with what happened in practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that were encountered along the way. Study 2 consists of clinic observations (pre-test counselling and results disclosure) to examine the interaction between health professionals and parents, along with follow-up interviews with both after each observation. Study 3 consists of a longitudinal survey with parents at two timepoints (time of testing and 12 months post-results) along with follow-up interviews, to examine parent-reported experiences and outcomes. Study 4 consists of qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey with medical specialists to identify preparedness, facilitators and challenges to mainstreaming genomic testing. The use of theory-based and pre-specified constructs will help generalise the findings and enable integration across the various sub-studies.   Dissemination: We will disseminate our results to policymakers as findings emerge, so any suggested changes to service provision can be considered in a timely manner. A workshop with key stakeholders will be held in Year 4 to develop and agree a set of recommendations for practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document