The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
METHODS: A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
Parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccines is increasing. Barriers to vaccination among this population have been described, yet less is known regarding motivating factors. Researchers are beginning to evaluate various approaches to address the concerns of "vaccine-hesitant" parents, but few studies have evaluated the effect of interventions on timely vaccine uptake. Several models for communicating with vaccine-hesitant parents have been reported for healthcare providers; however, the effectiveness and utility of these strategies has not been quantified. This article reviews the known barriers to vaccination reported by vaccine-hesitant parents and the current evidence on strategies to address parental vaccine hesitancy.
BACKGROUND: The Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been available for protection against HPV-associated cervical cancer and genital warts since 2006. Nonetheless, uptake has varied among countries and populations within countries. Studies have found that individuals' knowledge and attitudes toward the vaccine are associated with immunization uptake. The purpose of the current review is to summarize and evaluate the evidence for educational interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptance.
METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed and Web of Science for English-language articles describing educational interventions designed to improve HPV vaccination uptake, intention or attitude.
RESULTS: We identified 33 studies of HPV vaccination educational interventions: 7 tested the effectiveness of interventions with parents, 8 with adolescents or young adults, and 18 compared the effectiveness of different message frames in an educational intervention among adolescents, young adults or their parents. Most studies involved populations with higher educational attainment and most interventions required participants to be literate. The minority of studies used the outcome of HPV vaccine uptake. Well-designed studies adequately powered to detect change in vaccine uptake were rare and generally did not demonstrate effectiveness of the tested intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: There is not strong evidence to recommend any specific educational intervention for wide-spread implementation. Future studies are required to determine the effectiveness of culturally-competent interventions reaching diverse populations.
Unvaccinated individuals pose a public health threat to communities. Research has identified many factors associated with parental vaccine refusal and hesitancy toward childhood and adolescent immunizations. However, data on the effectiveness of interventions to address parental refusal are limited. We conducted a systematic review of four online databases to identify interventional studies. We used criteria recommended by the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization (SAGE) for the quality assessment of studies. Intervention categories and outcomes were evaluated for each body of evidence and confidence in overall estimates of effect was determined. There is limited evidence to guide implementation of effective strategies to deal with the emerging threat of parental vaccine refusal. There is a need for appropriately designed, executed and evaluated intervention studies to address this gap in knowledge.
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
METHODS:
A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.
RESULTS:
Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
