医护人员对家长疫苗犹豫不决的话语建构:多重道德的故事。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Qualitative Health Research Pub Date : 2024-06-16 DOI:10.1177/10497323241245646
Esther Lermytte, Piet Bracke, Melissa Ceuterick
{"title":"医护人员对家长疫苗犹豫不决的话语建构:多重道德的故事。","authors":"Esther Lermytte, Piet Bracke, Melissa Ceuterick","doi":"10.1177/10497323241245646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare professionals play a crucial role in addressing the concerns of vaccine-hesitant parents since they form a trusted source for vaccine-related information. An increasing body of evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are faced with complexities when navigating the sensitive topic of parental vaccine hesitancy, as they balance their own vaccine- and context-specific concerns with institutional and societal pressures to vaccinate. Furthermore, health choices, such as parental choices for childhood vaccination, are often linked to moralisation. Given the emphasis on effective communication with vaccine-hesitant parents in the patient-centred care literature, it is important to consider healthcare professionals' interpretations of parental vaccine hesitancy. Hence, a deeper understanding of how healthcare professionals make sense of, and moralise, childhood vaccination can help us understand how moralisation might appear in their communication with hesitant parents (in)directly. Drawing on a critical social-psychological framework for discourse analysis, this study analyses 39 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals in Flanders, Belgium, and presents the discursive patterns articulated by healthcare professionals on parental vaccine hesitancy. The findings elucidate how healthcare professionals perpetuate, or resist, moral discourse in their accounts of vaccine hesitancy by constructing five different interpretative repertoires, that is, a \"good\" or \"bad\" parenting repertoire, a freedom of choice repertoire, an individual risk-benefit repertoire, a public health repertoire, and an accessibility repertoire. Our study highlights the complexities healthcare professionals experience in negotiating vaccine hesitancy, as their understandings of vaccine hesitancy are affected by, and contribute to, existing moral dilemmas and dominant discourses surrounding health and parenting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare Professionals' Discursive Constructions of Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Tale of Multiple Moralities.\",\"authors\":\"Esther Lermytte, Piet Bracke, Melissa Ceuterick\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10497323241245646\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Healthcare professionals play a crucial role in addressing the concerns of vaccine-hesitant parents since they form a trusted source for vaccine-related information. An increasing body of evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are faced with complexities when navigating the sensitive topic of parental vaccine hesitancy, as they balance their own vaccine- and context-specific concerns with institutional and societal pressures to vaccinate. Furthermore, health choices, such as parental choices for childhood vaccination, are often linked to moralisation. Given the emphasis on effective communication with vaccine-hesitant parents in the patient-centred care literature, it is important to consider healthcare professionals' interpretations of parental vaccine hesitancy. Hence, a deeper understanding of how healthcare professionals make sense of, and moralise, childhood vaccination can help us understand how moralisation might appear in their communication with hesitant parents (in)directly. Drawing on a critical social-psychological framework for discourse analysis, this study analyses 39 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals in Flanders, Belgium, and presents the discursive patterns articulated by healthcare professionals on parental vaccine hesitancy. The findings elucidate how healthcare professionals perpetuate, or resist, moral discourse in their accounts of vaccine hesitancy by constructing five different interpretative repertoires, that is, a \\\"good\\\" or \\\"bad\\\" parenting repertoire, a freedom of choice repertoire, an individual risk-benefit repertoire, a public health repertoire, and an accessibility repertoire. Our study highlights the complexities healthcare professionals experience in negotiating vaccine hesitancy, as their understandings of vaccine hesitancy are affected by, and contribute to, existing moral dilemmas and dominant discourses surrounding health and parenting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Health Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Health Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241245646\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241245646","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健专业人员是疫苗相关信息的可信来源,因此他们在解决对疫苗犹豫不决的家长的担忧方面发挥着至关重要的作用。越来越多的证据表明,医疗保健专业人员在处理家长疫苗接种犹豫这一敏感话题时面临着复杂的问题,因为他们要在自己对疫苗和具体情况的担忧与机构和社会的疫苗接种压力之间取得平衡。此外,健康选择(如家长对儿童疫苗接种的选择)往往与道德化联系在一起。鉴于以患者为中心的护理文献强调与对疫苗犹豫不决的家长进行有效沟通,因此考虑医护人员对家长疫苗犹豫不决的解释非常重要。因此,深入了解医护人员如何理解儿童疫苗接种并将其道德化,有助于我们理解道德化如何直接出现在他们与犹豫不决的家长的沟通中。本研究利用批判性社会心理学框架进行话语分析,分析了在比利时佛兰德斯对医疗保健专业人员进行的 39 次半结构式访谈,并介绍了医疗保健专业人员就家长疫苗接种犹豫不决问题所阐述的话语模式。研究结果阐明了医护人员如何通过构建五种不同的解释剧目,即 "好 "或 "坏 "的养育剧目、自由选择剧目、个人风险-收益剧目、公共卫生剧目和可及性剧目,在其关于疫苗犹豫的叙述中延续或抵制道德话语。我们的研究强调了医疗保健专业人员在就疫苗犹豫不决进行协商时所经历的复杂性,因为他们对疫苗犹豫不决的理解受到了现有道德困境和围绕健康与养育的主流话语的影响,并对其起到了促进作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Healthcare Professionals' Discursive Constructions of Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Tale of Multiple Moralities.

Healthcare professionals play a crucial role in addressing the concerns of vaccine-hesitant parents since they form a trusted source for vaccine-related information. An increasing body of evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are faced with complexities when navigating the sensitive topic of parental vaccine hesitancy, as they balance their own vaccine- and context-specific concerns with institutional and societal pressures to vaccinate. Furthermore, health choices, such as parental choices for childhood vaccination, are often linked to moralisation. Given the emphasis on effective communication with vaccine-hesitant parents in the patient-centred care literature, it is important to consider healthcare professionals' interpretations of parental vaccine hesitancy. Hence, a deeper understanding of how healthcare professionals make sense of, and moralise, childhood vaccination can help us understand how moralisation might appear in their communication with hesitant parents (in)directly. Drawing on a critical social-psychological framework for discourse analysis, this study analyses 39 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals in Flanders, Belgium, and presents the discursive patterns articulated by healthcare professionals on parental vaccine hesitancy. The findings elucidate how healthcare professionals perpetuate, or resist, moral discourse in their accounts of vaccine hesitancy by constructing five different interpretative repertoires, that is, a "good" or "bad" parenting repertoire, a freedom of choice repertoire, an individual risk-benefit repertoire, a public health repertoire, and an accessibility repertoire. Our study highlights the complexities healthcare professionals experience in negotiating vaccine hesitancy, as their understandings of vaccine hesitancy are affected by, and contribute to, existing moral dilemmas and dominant discourses surrounding health and parenting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
期刊最新文献
Guardians Looking From Outside: Gendered Experiences of Labor Migration and Psychosocial Health Among Nepalese Migrant Fathers and Left-Behind Mothers “That Is What We Have Left of Her”: The Significance of Transitional Objects After the Death of an Infant in a Norwegian Context Intersectionality and Caregiving: The Exclusion Experience and Coping Resources of Immigrant Women Caring for a Family Member With Severe Mental Illness. Differences in the Use and Perception of Telehealth Across Four Mental Health Professions: Insights From a Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data. A Prospective Qualitative Inquiry of Patient Experiences of Cognitive Functional Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain During the RESTORE Trial
×
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