Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2023-08-13 DOI:10.1002/cl2.1352
Maya Murmann, Anna Cooper Reed, Mary Scott, Justin Presseau, Carrie Heer, Kathryn May, Amy Ramzy, Chau N. Huynh, Becky Skidmore, Vivian Welch, Julian Little, Kumanan Wilson, Melissa Brouwers, Amy T. Hsu
{"title":"Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review","authors":"Maya Murmann,&nbsp;Anna Cooper Reed,&nbsp;Mary Scott,&nbsp;Justin Presseau,&nbsp;Carrie Heer,&nbsp;Kathryn May,&nbsp;Amy Ramzy,&nbsp;Chau N. Huynh,&nbsp;Becky Skidmore,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;Julian Little,&nbsp;Kumanan Wilson,&nbsp;Melissa Brouwers,&nbsp;Amy T. Hsu","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1352","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults.

Methods

We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively.

Results

We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed.

Conclusions

Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索COVID-19教育,以支持普通成年人对疫苗的信心,并特别考虑医疗保健和长期护理人员:范围审查
背景:尽管已批准的COVID-19疫苗显示出了有效性,但在COVID-19疫苗推出的头几个月里,人们表现出了高度的犹豫。文献中对导致疫苗犹豫的因素有很好的描述。在促进疫苗信心的各种战略中,教育干预提供了一套基本和广泛实施的方法,以支持个人作出疫苗决定。然而,关于提高疫苗信心的各种教育战略的可衡量影响的证据是有限的。我们进行了一项范围审查,目的是探索和描述大流行期间提供的教育干预措施,以支持成人对COVID-19疫苗的信心。方法与医学信息科学家共同制定检索策略,检索Ovid MEDLINE、Web of Science等5个数据库以及灰色文献。我们考虑了所有的研究设计和报告。向儿童或青少年提供的干预措施、针对非covid -19疫苗的干预措施,以及调解人与特定受众之间没有记录在案的相互作用的国家或大规模疫苗接种运动被排除在外。文章由三位审稿人独立筛选。在两轮检索中筛选了4602篇标题和摘要以及174篇全文文章后,有22篇文章符合我们的纳入标准。通过手工搜索确定了另外10项研究。纳入研究的数据被绘制成图表,结果被叙述。结果我们纳入了32项研究,并综合了它们的教育传递结构、参与者(即引导者和优先受众)和内容。在纳入的研究中,以小组为基础的正式演讲是最常见的教育干预类型(75%)。三分之一的研究(34%)采用了多种策略,许多正式的以小组为基础的报告与额外的以个人为基础的干预相结合(29%)。鉴于COVID-19疫苗的新颖性和独特的当前背景,研究报告称,个性化对话、提问环节和解决错误信息是所审查教育方法的重要组成部分。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间提供了各种教育干预措施,其中许多举措涉及多方面的干预措施,利用正式和非正式的方法,在制定和促进COVID-19疫苗教育时利用社区(文化、宗教)伙伴关系。与公认的社区成员一起培训培训师的方法可能是有价值的,因为在整个审查过程中,信任和个人关系被认为是强有力的推动因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of social accountability interventions in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map PROTOCOL: Risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions against child sexual abuse: An umbrella review PROTOCOL: Is the CEO/employee pay ratio related to firm performance in publicly traded companies? New search guidance for Campbell systematic reviews PROTOCOL: The association between adverse childhood experiences and employment outcomes: Protocol for a systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1