A randomized controlled trial of empathetic refutational learning with health care professionals.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMC Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1186/s12889-025-21787-4
Dawn Holford, Karl O Mäki, Linda C Karlsson, Stephan Lewandowsky, Virginia C Gould, Anna Soveri
{"title":"A randomized controlled trial of empathetic refutational learning with health care professionals.","authors":"Dawn Holford, Karl O Mäki, Linda C Karlsson, Stephan Lewandowsky, Virginia C Gould, Anna Soveri","doi":"10.1186/s12889-025-21787-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care professionals are in a key position to promote vaccinations. However, consulting vaccine-hesitant patients can be difficult, especially when patients bring up anti-vaccination arguments. Whereas prior research has identified essential skills for refuting anti-vaccination arguments, little is known about how to acquire these skills. Our aim was to determine if empathetic refutational interview text scenarios help health care professionals build confidence and abilities in countering anti-vaccination arguments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an online randomized controlled experiment with UK and Finnish health care professionals in which we randomly assigned them to an empathetic refutational interview group (n = 167) or a control group (n = 180). Participants in the empathetic refutational interview group were presented with examples of the empathetic refutational interview approach, which encompasses the identification of attitude roots, affirmations, corrections of misconceptions, and provision of facts. Control group participants received a standard facts-based approach. We examined posttest use of empathetic refutational interview techniques and pre- and posttest perceived difficulty of refuting anti-vaccination arguments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants in the empathetic refutational interview group used more empathetic affirmations than control group participants. The empathetic refutational interview group and the control group did not differ significantly in how often they explicitly tried to identify attitude roots, correct misconceptions, and provide vaccination facts, nor in how difficult they found anti-vaccination arguments to be to refute.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Brief empathetic refutational interview text scenarios can increase health care professionals' use of affirmations when discussing vaccines with patients. Additional materials are needed to efficiently teach refutations of attitude roots.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"583"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11823235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21787-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health care professionals are in a key position to promote vaccinations. However, consulting vaccine-hesitant patients can be difficult, especially when patients bring up anti-vaccination arguments. Whereas prior research has identified essential skills for refuting anti-vaccination arguments, little is known about how to acquire these skills. Our aim was to determine if empathetic refutational interview text scenarios help health care professionals build confidence and abilities in countering anti-vaccination arguments.

Methods: We conducted an online randomized controlled experiment with UK and Finnish health care professionals in which we randomly assigned them to an empathetic refutational interview group (n = 167) or a control group (n = 180). Participants in the empathetic refutational interview group were presented with examples of the empathetic refutational interview approach, which encompasses the identification of attitude roots, affirmations, corrections of misconceptions, and provision of facts. Control group participants received a standard facts-based approach. We examined posttest use of empathetic refutational interview techniques and pre- and posttest perceived difficulty of refuting anti-vaccination arguments.

Results: Participants in the empathetic refutational interview group used more empathetic affirmations than control group participants. The empathetic refutational interview group and the control group did not differ significantly in how often they explicitly tried to identify attitude roots, correct misconceptions, and provide vaccination facts, nor in how difficult they found anti-vaccination arguments to be to refute.

Conclusions: Brief empathetic refutational interview text scenarios can increase health care professionals' use of affirmations when discussing vaccines with patients. Additional materials are needed to efficiently teach refutations of attitude roots.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
卫生保健专业人员共情反驳学习的随机对照试验。
背景:卫生保健专业人员在促进疫苗接种方面处于关键地位。然而,咨询对疫苗犹豫不决的患者可能很困难,尤其是当患者提出反对疫苗接种的论点时。尽管先前的研究已经确定了反驳反疫苗接种论点的基本技能,但人们对如何获得这些技能知之甚少。我们的目的是确定是否移情反驳采访文本场景帮助卫生保健专业人员建立信心和能力,以反对反疫苗接种的论点。方法:我们对英国和芬兰的卫生保健专业人员进行了一项在线随机对照实验,我们将他们随机分配到共情反驳访谈组(n = 167)和对照组(n = 180)。移情反驳访谈组的参与者被提供了移情反驳访谈方法的例子,其中包括态度根源的识别、肯定、错误观念的纠正和事实的提供。对照组的参与者接受的是标准的基于事实的方法。我们检查了测试后使用共情反驳访谈技术和测试前和测试后的感知困难反驳反疫苗接种的论点。结果:共情反驳访谈组的参与者比对照组的参与者使用更多的共情肯定。移情反驳访谈组和对照组在明确试图识别态度根源、纠正误解和提供疫苗接种事实的频率上没有显著差异,也没有在他们发现反驳反疫苗接种论点的难度上有多大差异。结论:简短的移情反驳访谈文本场景可以增加卫生保健专业人员在与患者讨论疫苗时肯定的使用。为了有效地教授态度根的反驳,需要额外的材料。
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
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and correlates of tobacco use among adolescents in Dhaka, Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. The potential of routine surveillance data for identifying the needs of people living with HIV among migrants: Description of German HIV notifications in the context of the Ukrainian refugee reception, 2022-2023. National public health institutes in Africa: a systematic review. The effect of social media-based education on skin cancer risk knowledge, skin self-examination and sun protection behaviours of women working in agriculture. Wealth-based and rural-urban disparities in digestive diseases among indonesian adults: evidence from a cross-sectional analysis of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS-5).
×
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:604180095
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