Vaccine-hesitant families are more susceptible to verbal communication messaging.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Central European journal of public health Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.21101/cejph.a7508
Vitalija Svist, Agne Maciuleviciene, Simona Naudziunaite, Sigita Petraitiene, Stefano Del Torso, Zachi Grossman, Ginreta Magelinskiene, Arunas Valiulis
{"title":"Vaccine-hesitant families are more susceptible to verbal communication messaging.","authors":"Vitalija Svist,&nbsp;Agne Maciuleviciene,&nbsp;Simona Naudziunaite,&nbsp;Sigita Petraitiene,&nbsp;Stefano Del Torso,&nbsp;Zachi Grossman,&nbsp;Ginreta Magelinskiene,&nbsp;Arunas Valiulis","doi":"10.21101/cejph.a7508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our survey aims to highlight parents' and healthcare workers' opinions and hesitations regarding children's vaccination, identify the main factors influencing these opinions, and assess the impact of hesitations on immunisation for children, included in the National Immunisation Programme in Lithuania.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the questionnaire developed by the European Academy of Paediatrics Research in Ambulatory Settings Network (EAPRASnet). This questionnaire is designed to assess attitudes toward vaccination. The study involved parents raising children aged 1-4 years and primary healthcare providers (paediatricians, family doctors and nurses).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analysed the completed questionnaires from a total of 329 parents (142 fathers, 187 mothers) and 386 medical personnel (150 physicians, 236 nurses). Most parents expressed positive opinions about vaccines (> 8 points out of 10 possible), with older parents exhibiting more favourable attitudes. Compared to mothers, fathers showed more criticism regarding the information provided by physicians (p = 0.04). Family doctors and paediatricians were more supportive of vaccination than nurses and homoeopaths (p < 0.001). Parents and healthcare providers with higher education showed statistically significantly stronger opinions about the benefits of vaccines than those with lower education levels (p = 0.01 for parents, p < 0.001 for physicians and nurses). The Internet was identified as the primary source of negative information for both parents (69.6%) and healthcare providers (86%). However, verbal information received from medical staff during patient consultations or informal conversations among colleagues had the greatest impact on parents' opinions (17.3%) and medical personnel (35.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Confidential conversations with physicians and nurses remain the most trustworthy sources of information and influential factors shaping opinions. The Internet serves as the primary source of inaccurate information about vaccinations for both parents and medical professionals, although verbal information from primary healthcare providers has a more significant impact on vaccination attitudes. Discrepancies in basic education and specific knowledge about vaccination within the same family can pose additional obstacles to child vaccination.</p>","PeriodicalId":9823,"journal":{"name":"Central European journal of public health","volume":"31 2","pages":"103-109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21101/cejph.a7508","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Our survey aims to highlight parents' and healthcare workers' opinions and hesitations regarding children's vaccination, identify the main factors influencing these opinions, and assess the impact of hesitations on immunisation for children, included in the National Immunisation Programme in Lithuania.

Methods: We used the questionnaire developed by the European Academy of Paediatrics Research in Ambulatory Settings Network (EAPRASnet). This questionnaire is designed to assess attitudes toward vaccination. The study involved parents raising children aged 1-4 years and primary healthcare providers (paediatricians, family doctors and nurses).

Results: We analysed the completed questionnaires from a total of 329 parents (142 fathers, 187 mothers) and 386 medical personnel (150 physicians, 236 nurses). Most parents expressed positive opinions about vaccines (> 8 points out of 10 possible), with older parents exhibiting more favourable attitudes. Compared to mothers, fathers showed more criticism regarding the information provided by physicians (p = 0.04). Family doctors and paediatricians were more supportive of vaccination than nurses and homoeopaths (p < 0.001). Parents and healthcare providers with higher education showed statistically significantly stronger opinions about the benefits of vaccines than those with lower education levels (p = 0.01 for parents, p < 0.001 for physicians and nurses). The Internet was identified as the primary source of negative information for both parents (69.6%) and healthcare providers (86%). However, verbal information received from medical staff during patient consultations or informal conversations among colleagues had the greatest impact on parents' opinions (17.3%) and medical personnel (35.5%).

Conclusions: Confidential conversations with physicians and nurses remain the most trustworthy sources of information and influential factors shaping opinions. The Internet serves as the primary source of inaccurate information about vaccinations for both parents and medical professionals, although verbal information from primary healthcare providers has a more significant impact on vaccination attitudes. Discrepancies in basic education and specific knowledge about vaccination within the same family can pose additional obstacles to child 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
是否接种疫苗犹豫不决的家庭更容易受到口头交流信息的影响。
目的:我们的调查旨在强调家长和卫生保健工作者对儿童疫苗接种的意见和犹豫,确定影响这些意见的主要因素,并评估犹豫对立陶宛国家免疫规划中儿童免疫接种的影响。方法:我们使用由欧洲儿科研究学会门诊设置网络(EAPRASnet)开发的问卷。本问卷旨在评估对疫苗接种的态度。该研究涉及抚养1-4岁儿童的父母和初级保健提供者(儿科医生、家庭医生和护士)。结果:共对329名家长(142名父亲,187名母亲)和386名医务人员(150名医生,236名护士)的问卷进行分析。大多数父母对疫苗表达了积极的看法(10分满分> 8分),年龄较大的父母表现出更积极的态度。与母亲相比,父亲对医生提供的信息表现出更多的批评(p = 0.04)。家庭医生和儿科医生比护士和顺势疗法医生更支持疫苗接种(p < 0.001)。与受教育程度较低的人相比,受过高等教育的父母和医疗保健提供者对疫苗益处的看法在统计上显著增强(父母p = 0.01,医生和护士p < 0.001)。互联网被确定为父母(69.6%)和医疗保健提供者(86%)的负面信息的主要来源。然而,从医务人员在患者咨询或同事之间的非正式谈话中获得的口头信息对家长(17.3%)和医务人员(35.5%)的意见影响最大。结论:与医生和护士的保密谈话仍然是最值得信赖的信息来源和影响意见形成的因素。对于父母和医疗专业人员来说,互联网是关于疫苗接种的不准确信息的主要来源,尽管初级卫生保健提供者的口头信息对疫苗接种态度有更大的影响。同一家庭中关于疫苗接种的基础教育和具体知识的差异可能对儿童疫苗接种造成额外障碍。
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
Central European journal of public health
Central European journal of public health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes original articles on disease prevention and health protection, environmental impacts on health, the role of nutrition in health promotion, results of population health studies and critiques of specific health issues including intervention measures such as vaccination and its effectiveness. The review articles are targeted at providing up-to-date information in the sphere of public health. The Journal is geographically targeted at the European region but will accept specialised articles from foreign sources that contribute to public health issues also applicable to the European cultural milieu.
期刊最新文献
A post-pandemic trend in the consumption of dietary supplements among residents of Lithuania. Comparison of cervical cancer screening models based on Pap and HPV tests in Tbilisi, Georgia. Course and complications of influenza A in seniors over 65 years of age. Impact of climate on varicella distribution in Bulgaria (2009-2018). Mediterranean diet adherence in 9-years old children: a cross-sectional study in the part of the Split-Dalmatia County, Croatia.
×
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