Search

• Survey of clinicians comparing revised product labels to existing labels. • Healthcare providers preferred stakeholder-developed labels over existing labels. • Preference based on clearer wording and relevance to clinical decision-making. • Qualitative responses may help guide additional improvement to labels. • Stakeholder involvement in statement development improved product label information. The World Health Organization recommends immunization with inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy. Yet, product labelling information for IIV and Tdap sends a different message. In a previous study, we developed evidence-based statements about vaccination in pregnancy that could be included in product information. This study compares healthcare providers' perceptions of the revised statements to those currently used in vaccine product labelling information. A 30-item online survey with qualitative and quantitative components was distributed to Canadian maternal healthcare providers via professional organizations and public health. Participants read excerpts from revised and existing IIV and Tdap product labelling information and answered questions about how they perceived the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, whether they would recommend each vaccine during pregnancy, and which statements they preferred. From June to August 2018, 449 healthcare providers completed the survey, including physicians (45%), nurses (24%), midwives (27%) and others (5%). Most participants perceived the vaccines to be safe and effective based on the revised statements. Over twice as many participants said they would recommend the IIV and Tdap vaccines in pregnancy based on the revised rather than the existing statements (64% versus 21% for IIV and 63% versus 27% for Tdap). Most participants selected that the revised statements better explained the risks and benefits of vaccination in pregnancy (65% versus 21% for IIV; 51% versus 27% for Tdap). Qualitative comments highlighted the strengths of the revised statements and areas for improvement. The majority of participants demonstrated preferences for the revised IIV and Tdap product label statements over the existing statements. Comments suggested the revised statements include improvements to the evidence-base and readability. Involving stakeholders improved the development of product labelling information, but further improvement is needed to support the evidence-based use of vaccines in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Consensus-based methods were used to improve vaccine product label information. • Stakeholders developed structure, language, and content for product labels. • Emergent methods exposed divergent understandings of the purpose of product labels. • Stakeholders were concerned about how product labels are regulated. • Developers of product label information should consider involving end users. Product labelling information describing the use of vaccines in pregnancy continues to contain cautionary language even after clinical and epidemiological evidence of safety becomes available. This language raises safety concerns among healthcare providers who may hesitate to recommend vaccines during pregnancy. To develop clear evidence-based language about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pregnancy for inclusion in vaccine product labels. We conducted a three-stage consensus-methods project with stakeholders, including: healthcare providers, vaccine regulators, industry representatives, and experts in public health, communication, law, ethics, and social sciences. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we held a nominal group technique (NGT) meeting, followed by a Delphi survey, and then a consensus workshop with a subset of Delphi participants. We developed a methodological tool to analyse data for consensus. Stakeholders (N = 14) at the NGT meeting drafted product label statements for evaluation in the Delphi survey. Survey participants (N = 41) provided feedback on statements for five hypothetical vaccines. Workshop participants (N = 27) initiated discussions that demonstrated a lack of awareness that the regulatory purpose of product labels is to provide a scientific summary of product-specific pre-clinical and clinical trial data. Each stage of this project built on earlier stages until we achieved strong consensus on the language, structure, and types of data that stakeholders wanted to include in inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine product labels in Canada. The revised statements for IIV and Tdap aligned with workshop participants' goals that the product label be evidence-based, with a consistent structure and language that is easily understood by healthcare providers. Emergent methods uncovered stakeholder concerns about the regulatory purpose, content, and evidence used in product labels. Involving healthcare providers in the development and regular updating of product information could prevent interpretations of that information that contribute to vaccine hesitancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the Canadian province of Alberta experienced outbreaks of measles, mumps, pertussis, and influenza. Even so, the dominant cultural narrative maintains that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary to maintain population health. Many vaccine supporters have expressed anxieties that stories contradicting this narrative have lowered herd immunity levels because they frighten the public into avoiding vaccination. As such, vaccine policies often emphasize educating parents and the public about the importance and safety of vaccination. These policies rely on health professionals to encourage vaccine uptake and assume that all professionals support vaccination. Health professionals, however, are socially positioned between vaccine experts (such as immunologists) and non-experts (the wider public). In this article, I discuss health professionals' anxieties about the potential risks associated with vaccination and with the limitations of Alberta's immunisation program. Specifically, I address the question: If medical knowledge overwhelmingly supports vaccination, then why do some professionals continue to question certain vaccines? To investigate this topic, I interviewed twenty-seven physicians and seven nurses. With stock images and small stories that interviewees shared about their vaccine anxieties, I challenge the common assumption that all health professionals support vaccines uncritically. All interviewees provided generic statements that supported vaccination and Alberta's immunisation program, but they expressed anxieties when I asked for details. I found that their anxieties reflected nuances that the culturally dominant vaccine narrative overlooks. Particularly, they critiqued the influence that pharmaceutical companies, the perceived newness of specific vaccines, and the limitations of medical knowledge and vaccine schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Health professionals' perceptions of public engagement with narratives about vaccines offer a vantage point from which to observe emotion in their understandings of their roles, patients' anxieties, and the navigation of perceived risks. In this article, I report findings from interviews with twenty-seven physicians and seven nurses' about the role of emotion in public narratives about vaccination. I inform my analysis with narrative methodologies and literature about affect, emotion, and risks. In particular, I found that interviewees construct vaccine risk narrators and their narratives as risky Others who generate fears of vaccines, and who are responsible for low vaccination rates. In contrast, interviewees discuss their own opinions and statements from Public Health as evidence-informed. Although some interviewees mention allaying patient fears, others seem intent to evoke fears of disease to counter fears of vaccines by using emotional stories to convey information and emotion to patients. Notably, interviewees' use of stories and recognition of emotion in vaccine decision-making constructed the mobilization of fears of vaccine-preventable diseases as a reasonable tactic to raise vaccination rates. Highlights • Physicians and nurses responses to vaccine fears among the public. • Role of emotional narrative in risk communication and assessment. • Construction of anti-vaccine proponents and talk as risky Others. • Use of emotion to persuade patients of evidence-informed medical interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the extent to which a one-week nursing rotation for medical students changed the interprofessional attitudes of the participating nurses and students. Third-year medical students worked with nurses before starting clinical rotations. Pre- and post-experience surveys assessing perceptions of mutual respect, nurse-doctor roles, and interprofessional communication and teamwork were given to 55 nurses and 57 students. The surveys consisted of qualitative questions and a Likert scale questionnaire that was analyzed using qualitative and quantitative content analyses. The response rate was 51/57 (89%) students and 44/55 (80%) nurse preceptors. Nurses reported that students met nurses’ expectations by displaying responsibility, respect, effective communication, and an understanding of nursing roles. Medical students’ narratives demonstrated two significant changes. First, their views of nurses changed from that of physician helpers to that of collaborative patient-centred professionals. Second, they began defining nursing not by its tasks, but as a caring- and communication-centred profession. Responses to Likert-scaled questions showed significant differences corresponding to changes described in the narrative. A one-week immersive clinical nursing rotation for medical students was a transformative way of learning interprofessional competencies. Learning in an authentic workplace during a clinical rotation engendered mutual respect between nurses and future doctors. Students’ view of the role of nurses changed from nurses working for doctors with patients, to working with doctors for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]