Search

Background: Vaccine hesitancy exists on a continuum ranging between complete adherence and complete refusal due to doubts or concerns within a heterogeneous group of individuals. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the contextual factors influencing attitudes and beliefs shaping COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, qualitative research with equity-deserving groups, accounting for unique lived experiences, remains a gap in the literature. We aim to identify and begin to understand and document the unique contextual factors shaping hesitancy by equity-deserving groups as it relates to relationships with government and health authorities. Methods: Participants were recruited and interviewed between Aug-Dec 2021. Semi-structured interviews using a convergent interviewing technique were conducted with individuals from the general population, as well as individuals who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, members of the LGBT2SQ + community, low-income Canadians, Black Canadians, and newcomers. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by a team of researchers. Memos were written following interviews and used to complement the thematic analysis of the interview data. Themes are presented in the results section. Results: The rationale for hesitancy among equity-deserving groups is consistent with literature documenting hesitancy in the general population. Contextual factors surrounding equity-deserving groups' attitudes and beliefs, however, are unique and relate to a history of oppression, discrimination, and genocide. We identified factors unique to subgroups; for example, religious or fatalistic beliefs among participant who identify as FNMI, fear associated with lack of testing and speed of vaccines' production among participants who identify as FNMI, Black, and LGBT2SQ + , distrust of the healthcare system for LGBT2SQ + and Black Canadians, and distrust of the government and opposition to vaccine mandates for participating who identify as LGBT2SQ + , low-income, FNMI, or Black Canadian. Newcomers stood out as very trusting of the government and accepting of COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions: While our data on vaccine hesitancy largely mirror concerns reported in the vast body of literature citing rationale for COVID-19 hesitancy in high-income countries, the contextual factors identified in our work point to the need for wider systemic change. Our results may be used to support efforts, beyond tailored promotion campaigns, to support the confident acceptance of vaccines for COVID-19 and the acceptance of novel vaccines as future infectious diseases emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated inequities in health for structurally marginalised Canadians. Their location on society's hierarchies constrained their ability to access healthcare and follow recommended health behaviours. The aim of this article is to identify, from the perspective of marginalised populations, factors influencing the acceptance or rejection of COVID-19 countermeasures by structurally marginalised Canadians. Interviews were conducted with Canadians 18 + who identified as Black (n = 8), First Nations, Métis, or Inuit (n = 7) and low-income (<40,000 annual household income) (n = 8) between August and December 2021. Measures were said to impact well-being and interfere with revenue generating activities. Longstanding unfavourable living and environmental conditions as they relate to structural marginalisation was said to fuel anger toward the government and lead to a greater reluctance to accept countermeasures. Participants described concerns about government decisions being made without considering their unique contexts, or knowledge of the experiences of the population for whom these decisions were being made. Effective proactive action from government is important to foster trust with marginalised populations to support acceptance of health information and address growing inequities. Action that demonstrates government competence and commitment to the interests of marginalised populations is critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study sought to identify how diabetes organisations conceptualize the problem of diabetes‐related stigma and how this shapes the selection of stigma‐reduction interventions. Methods: A qualitative deliberative democratic methodology was used to access an informed dialogue about what should be done by diabetes organisations to address diabetes‐related stigma, drawing from the perspectives of board members, healthcare services staff, and communications and marketing staff from a single state‐wide diabetes organisation in Australia (n = 25). Results: Participants navigated the stigma concept along two axes: one that drew attention to either disease attributes or personal moral attributes as the object of stigmatisation, and one that positioned stigma as an individual or structural problem. This shaped the selection of stigma‐reduction interventions, which included interventions to: (i) reduce the prevalence of stigmatized attributes, (ii) correct misunderstandings about diabetes, (iii) modify representations of persons with diabetes, (iii) enhance coping amongst persons with diabetes and (iv) make healthcare more person‐centred and democratic. Conclusion: This study identified several grievances with 'diabetes‐related stigma', which are grievances that can be conceptualized and addressed at both individual and structural levels, and involve correcting misinformation about diabetes or challenging and communicating alternative representations of persons living with diabetes. Patient or Public Contribution: The organisation's management and board were consulted throughout all stages of research development, analysis and reporting. The information and vignettes presented to participants drew from illness narratives obtained from earlier research involving adults with type 2 diabetes. Research participants included adults with various diabetes types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Waiting times for hospital appointments, treatment and/or surgery have become a major political and health service problem, leading to national maximum waiting times and policies to reduce waiting times. Quantitative studies have documented waiting times for various types of surgery and longer waiting times in public vs private hospitals. However, very little qualitative research has explored patient experiences of waiting, how this compares between public and private hospitals, and the implications for trust in hospitals and healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to provide a deep understanding of the impact of waiting times on patient trust in public and private hospitals.Methods: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Data collection occurred in 2012-13, and data were analysed using pre-coding, followed by conceptual and theoretical categorisation.Results: Participants differentiated between experiences of 'waiting for' (e.g. for specialist appointments and surgery) and 'waiting in' (e.g. in emergency departments and outpatient clinics) public and private hospitals. Whilst 'waiting for' public hospitals was longer than private hospitals, this was often justified and accepted by public patients (e.g. due to reduced government funding), therefore it did not lead to distrust of public hospitals. Private patients had shorter 'waiting for' hospital services, increasing their trust in private hospitals and distrust of public hospitals. Public patients also recounted many experiences of longer 'waiting in' public hospitals, leading to frustration and anxiety, although they rarely blamed or distrusted the doctors or nurses, instead blaming an underfunded system and over-worked staff. Doctors and nurses were seen to be doing their best, and therefore trustworthy.Conclusion: Although public patients experienced longer 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' public hospitals, it did not lead to widespread distrust in public hospitals or healthcare professionals. Private patients recounted largely positive stories of reduced 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' private hospitals, and generally distrusted public hospitals. The continuing trust by public patients in the face of negative experiences may be understood as a form of exchange trust norm, in which institutional trust is based on base-level expectations of consistency and minimum standards of care and safety. The institutional trust by private patients may be understood as a form of communal trust norm, whereby trust is based on the additional and higher-level expectations of flexibility, reduced waiting and more time with healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the second highest cancer mortality rate in Australia. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) aims to increase early detection of CRC by offering free Faecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT), although uptake is low for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups. Aim of paper: To present data on trust and mistrust in the NBCSP by population groups with low uptake and thus to highlight areas in need of policy change. Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken in South Australia, involving interviews with 94 people from four CALD groups: Greek, Iranian, Anglo‐Australian, and Indigenous peoples. Results: Our study highlights the complexities of institutional trust, which involves considerations of trust at interpersonal, local and national levels. In addition, trust and mistrust was found in more abstract systems such as the medical knowledge of doctors to diagnose or treat cancer or the scientific procedures in laboratories to test the FOBTs. The object of institutional (mis)trust differed between cultural groups – Anglo‐Australian and Iranian groups indicated a high level of trust in the government, whereas Indigenous participants were much less trusting. Conclusion: The level and nature of trust in the screening process varied between the CALD groups. Addressing program misconceptions, clarifying the FOBT capabilities and involving medical services in collecting and transporting the samples may increase trust in the NBCSP. However, broader and more enduring mistrust in services and institutions may need to be dealt with in order to increase trust and participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper explores the nature and reasoning for (dis)trust in Australian public and private hospitals. Patient trust increases uptake of, engagement with and optimal outcomes from healthcare services and is therefore central to health practice, policy and planning. Methods: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Results: 'Private patients' made active choices about both their hospital and doctor, playing the role of the 'consumer', where trust and choice went hand in hand. The reputation of the doctor and hospital were key drivers of trust, under the assumption that a better reputation equates with higher quality care. However, making a choice to trust a doctor led to personal responsibility and the additional requirement for self-trust. 'Public patients' described having no choice in their hospital or doctor. They recognised 'problems' in the public healthcare system but accepted and even excused these as 'part of the system'. In order to justify their trust, they argued that doctors in public hospitals tried to do their best in difficult circumstances, thereby deserving of trust. This 'resigned trust' may stem from a lack of alternatives for free health care and thus a dependence on the system. Conclusion: These two contrasting models of trust within the same locality point to the way different configurations of healthcare systems, hospital experiences, insurance coverage and related forms of 'choice' combine to shape different formats of trust, as patients act to manage their vulnerability within these contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Nutrition education for cardiovascular disease (CVD) management is not effective for all population groups. There is little understanding of the factors that hinder patients from adhering to dietary recommendations. Methods 37 interviews were conducted with people living with CVD in Adelaide, Australia. Recruitment occurred via General Practitioner (GP) clinics and hospital cardiac rehabilitation programs. Participants were either receiving preventive treatment or active treatment for established CVD. Results The volume and contradictory nature of dietary information were the most prominent barriers to making changes identified in interviews, especially by order participants. Conclusion Patients will seek out, or come into contact with information which contradicts advice from their GPs. The volume of information may lead them to resort to old and familiar habits. GPs play a valuable role in highlighting key take-home messages and reliable external sources of information. The findings have implications for GP practice given that lifestyle changes are a cost- and clinically-effective means of managing CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate health researchers’ attitudes to involving the public in research. Background Public involvement in research is encouraged by the Department of Health in the UK. Despite this, the number of health researchers actively involving the public in research appears to be limited. There is little research specifically addressing the attitudes of health researchers towards involving the public: how they interpret the policy, what motivates and de-motivates them and what their experiences have been to date. Design A qualitative research design, using semi-structured telephone interviews. Setting and participants Fifteen purposively sampled UK-based University health researchers were the participants. Interviews were conducted over the telephone. Findings The participants suggested varying constructions of public involvement in research. Arguments based on moral and political principles and consequentialist arguments for involving the public in research were offered and most participants highlighted the potential benefits of involving the public. However, feelings of apprehension expressed by some participants imply that a number of researchers may still be uncomfortable with involving the public, as it presents a different way of working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]