Intervention hesitancy among healthcare personnel: conceptualizing beyond vaccine hesitancy.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-20 DOI:10.1007/s40592-022-00152-w
Rachel Gur-Arie, Nadav Davidovitch, Anat Rosenthal
{"title":"Intervention hesitancy among healthcare personnel: conceptualizing beyond vaccine hesitancy.","authors":"Rachel Gur-Arie, Nadav Davidovitch, Anat Rosenthal","doi":"10.1007/s40592-022-00152-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We propose an emerging conceptualization of \"intervention hesitancy\" to address a broad spectrum of hesitancy to disease prevention interventions among healthcare personnel (HCP) beyond vaccine hesitancy. To demonstrate this concept and its analytical benefits, we used a qualitative case-study methodology, identifying a \"spectrum\" of disease prevention interventions based on (1) the intervention's effectiveness, (2) how the intervention is regulated among HCP in the Israeli healthcare system, and (3) uptake among HCP in the Israeli healthcare system. Our cases ultimately contribute to a more nuanced conceptualization of hesitancy that HCP express towards disease prevention interventions. Our case interventions included the seasonal influenza vaccine, the Mantoux test, and the hepatitis B (HBV) vaccine. Influenza and HBV are vaccine-preventable diseases, though their respective vaccines vary significantly in effectiveness and uptake among HCP. The Mantoux test is a tuberculin skin test which provides a prevention benchmark for tuberculosis (TB), a non-vaccine preventable disease. We conducted semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders and analyzed them within Israeli and international policy context between 2016 and 2019, a period just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose the conceptualization of \"intervention hesitancy\"-beyond \"vaccine hesitancy\"-as \"hesitancy towards a wide range of public health interventions, including but not limited to vaccines\". Results suggested that intervention hesitancy among HCP is rooted in weak trust in their employer, poor employment conditions, as well as mixed institutional guidelines and culture. Conceptualizing intervention hesitancy expands the ability of healthcare systems to understand the root of hesitancy and foster a supportive institutional culture and trust, cognizant of diverse disease prevention interventions beyond vaccination.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"40 1","pages":"171-187"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934537/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-022-00152-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We propose an emerging conceptualization of "intervention hesitancy" to address a broad spectrum of hesitancy to disease prevention interventions among healthcare personnel (HCP) beyond vaccine hesitancy. To demonstrate this concept and its analytical benefits, we used a qualitative case-study methodology, identifying a "spectrum" of disease prevention interventions based on (1) the intervention's effectiveness, (2) how the intervention is regulated among HCP in the Israeli healthcare system, and (3) uptake among HCP in the Israeli healthcare system. Our cases ultimately contribute to a more nuanced conceptualization of hesitancy that HCP express towards disease prevention interventions. Our case interventions included the seasonal influenza vaccine, the Mantoux test, and the hepatitis B (HBV) vaccine. Influenza and HBV are vaccine-preventable diseases, though their respective vaccines vary significantly in effectiveness and uptake among HCP. The Mantoux test is a tuberculin skin test which provides a prevention benchmark for tuberculosis (TB), a non-vaccine preventable disease. We conducted semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders and analyzed them within Israeli and international policy context between 2016 and 2019, a period just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose the conceptualization of "intervention hesitancy"-beyond "vaccine hesitancy"-as "hesitancy towards a wide range of public health interventions, including but not limited to vaccines". Results suggested that intervention hesitancy among HCP is rooted in weak trust in their employer, poor employment conditions, as well as mixed institutional guidelines and culture. Conceptualizing intervention hesitancy expands the ability of healthcare systems to understand the root of hesitancy and foster a supportive institutional culture and trust, cognizant of diverse disease prevention interventions beyond vaccination.

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
卫生保健人员干预犹豫:概念化超出疫苗犹豫
我们提出了一个新兴的 "干预犹豫 "概念,以解决医疗保健人员(HCP)在疫苗犹豫之外对疾病预防干预措施的广泛犹豫。为了证明这一概念及其分析优势,我们采用了定性案例研究方法,根据以下几点确定了疾病预防干预措施的 "范围":(1)干预措施的有效性;(2)以色列医疗保健系统中如何规范医护人员的干预措施;以及(3)以色列医疗保健系统中医护人员对干预措施的接受程度。我们的案例最终有助于从更细微的概念上理解卫生保健人员对疾病预防干预措施的犹豫不决。我们的案例干预措施包括季节性流感疫苗、曼图氏试验和乙型肝炎 (HBV) 疫苗。流感和乙型肝炎 (HBV) 是可通过疫苗预防的疾病,但这两种疫苗的效果和在卫生保健人员中的使用率差别很大。Mantoux 试验是一种结核菌素皮肤试验,为结核病(TB)这种非疫苗可预防疾病提供了预防基准。我们对相关利益攸关方进行了半结构化访谈,并在 2016 年至 2019 年期间,即 COVID-19 大流行之前的以色列和国际政策背景下对访谈内容进行了分析。我们提出了 "干预犹豫 "的概念--除 "疫苗犹豫 "外,还包括 "对包括但不限于疫苗在内的各种公共卫生干预措施的犹豫"。研究结果表明,卫生保健人员对干预措施犹豫不决的根源在于对雇主的信任度低、就业条件差以及机构准则和文化参差不齐。将干预犹豫概念化可提高医疗保健系统的能力,使其了解犹豫的根源,培养支持性的机构文化和信任,认识到除疫苗接种以外的各种疾病预防干预措施。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
期刊最新文献
Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology. Do androids dream of informed consent? The need to understand the ethical implications of experimentation on simulated beings. Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X. The provision of abortion in Australia: service delivery as a bioethical concern. The immorality of bombing abortion clinics as proof that abortion is not murder.
×
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