Search

Objectives: Health care professionals (HCPs) play an important role for patients' vaccination decisions. To counsel patients/clients appropriately, HCPs need current factual knowledge about vaccines and strong communication skills. Methods: We conducted an online survey with physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and midwives in Switzerland (01.11.2020-31.03.2021). We evaluated: 1) interest in vaccination knowledge and counseling training; 2) vaccination recommendation practices; 3) experience with vaccination counseling/administration; 4) comfort level in addressing vaccine hesitancy (VH); 5) perspectives on patient/client VH, delays, and refusals. Results: In total, 1,933 practicing HCPs responded (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives). 43% physicians, 31% pharmacists, 15% nurses, and 23% midwives felt comfortable counseling VH patients/clients. 96% physicians, 98% pharmacists, 85% nurses, and 91% midwives were interested in additional vaccination-related training. All professionals mentioned safety, efficacy, and side effects as topics of most interest for additional training. Conclusion: Results demonstrate a high interest among HCPs for additional vaccination-related training. In addition to factual information about vaccination, such training will likely benefit from a communication component, given the low rates of comfort reported by HCPs when counseling VH patients/clients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Lucas Ramanathan, Baldesberger, Dietrich, Speranza, Lüthy, Buhl, Gisin, Koch, Nicca, Suggs, Huber, Deml and Tarr.)

Objective: Vaccination in pharmacies has been a key component of national vaccination strategies to facilitate vaccination access. Qualitative data on the perspectives of professional stakeholders on vaccination in pharmacies and on the professional relations of pharmacists with physicians regarding increasing immunisation rates is limited. We conducted a qualitative study in Switzerland. The main aim was to gain further insight into professional stakeholders' perspectives on vaccination counselling and administration conducted in pharmacies, and to further understand their views on physicians' and pharmacists' roles in increasing immunisation rates., Design: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews. We coded and analysed transcripts using thematic analysis., Setting: Face-to-face interviews took place in German-speaking and French-speaking regions of Switzerland., Participants: We interviewed 14 key vaccination stakeholders including health authorities, heads of pharmacy management and professional association boards. All participants had a background in medicine or pharmacy., Results: Three main themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) Participants viewed pharmacists as competent to provide vaccination counselling and administration based on their university training; (2) interprofessional cooperation between physicians and pharmacists on vaccination topics is limited and should be improved; and (3) pharmacists play an important role in increasing immunisation rates by facilitating vaccination access and through provision of vaccination counselling., Conclusion: By providing vaccination counselling and administering vaccines, pharmacists play an important public health role. Healthcare policies and health authorities should encourage more involvement of pharmacists and encourage interprofessional cooperation between physicians and pharmacists in order to improve vaccination counselling and increase immunisation rates., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy is a complex public health issue referring to concerns about the safety, efficacy or need for vaccination. Relatively little is known about vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland. This ongoing study (2017-2021) focuses on biomedical and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers and their patients since healthcare professionals play important roles in vaccination decision-making. This national research programme seeks to assess the sociocultural determinants of vaccine hesitancy regarding childhood and human papillomavirus vaccines in Switzerland. We aim to provide a detailed characterisation of vaccine hesitancy, including CAM and biomedical perspectives, patient-provider interactions, and sociocultural factors, to establish the mediating effects of vaccine hesitancy on underimmunisation, and to design an intervention to improve vaccination communication and counselling among physicians, parents and adolescents., Methods and Analysis: Our transdisciplinary team employs a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study design. We have established a network of more than 150 medical providers across Switzerland, including more than 40 CAM practitioners. For the qualitative component, we conduct interviews with parents, youth, and biomedical and CAM providers and observations of vaccination consultations and school vaccination information sessions. For the quantitative component, a sample of 1350 parents of young children and 722 young adults (15-26 years) and their medical providers respond to questionnaires. We measure vaccine hesitancy with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines 15-item survey and review vaccination certificates to assess vaccination status. We administer additional questions based on findings from qualitative research, addressing communication with medical providers, vaccine information sources and perceptions of risk control vis-à-vis vaccine-preventable diseases. The questionnaires capture sociodemographics, political views, religion and spirituality, and moral foundations., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the local ethics committee. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to healthcare professionals, researchers and the public via conferences and public presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers' roles in parents' decision-making about vaccinations for their children have only recently begun receiving research attention, despite studies showing CAM to be used by 25-50% of the population in Western countries. This article examines how CAM practitioners discuss vaccinations with parents in Switzerland, with a focus on childhood vaccinations and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations. We describe how the CAM providers we interviewed (N = 17) and observed during vaccination consultations (N = 18 observations with 5 providers) employed individualized approaches to vaccination. Triangulation of qualitative evidence from interviews and observations allowed us to analyze their discourses and descriptions of experiences (i.e. what they said) and their practices in situ (i.e. what they did). Evidence gathered shows that practitioners framed vaccination decisions as choices at individual and family levels rather than focusing on public health benefits and consequences. They articulated their perspectives in terms of personal clinical experiences and parents' wishes, concerns, and contexts. Such findings challenge recurring narratives depicting CAM providers as categorically anti-vaccination and suggest that approaches to address vaccine hesitancy in clinical practice could benefit from communication and relational approaches similar to those demonstrated by participants in this study. Such approaches include taking time to understand parents' wishes, involving them in vaccination decisions, and taking their concerns seriously., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article examines the relationships between biomedicine, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and parents' vaccination decision‐making in Switzerland. Our empirical evidence sheds light on an understudied phenomenon—parents switching from one doctor to another provider (often one offering CAM services) around issues that arise during vaccination consultations. This is important to understand since CAM is used by 25%–50% of the Swiss population and is integrated into the Swiss health‐care system when offered by biomedically trained medical doctors with additional CAM training. Qualitative data gathered from in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with parents (N = 30) and ethnographic observations of vaccination consultations (N = 16 biomedical consultations, N = 18 CAM consultations) demonstrate how there was not always a clear‐cut, direct relationship between (non)vaccination and parents' use of CAM and/or biomedicine. Borrowing from Hirschman (Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Harvard Univ. Press, 1970), we frame our analysis by using the concepts of exit, voice and loyalty to describe parents' provider selection and vaccination decision‐making process, although only four families in the sample described switching solely because of vaccination‐related issues. Findings add to vaccine decision‐making literature by describing and analysing the underdiscussed provider‐switching phenomenon and by demonstrating the importance of parents' experiences of trust, affect and choice in vaccination consultations as they pursue the best health outcomes for their children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports on our qualitative inquiry into the meanings biomedically trained doctors in Switzerland attach to treating vaccine hesitant (VH) and underimmunized patients. With support from social science literature on 'good' and 'bad' patients and doctors, we explore how both doctors and patients cross the boundaries of these conceptual categories in situations involving vaccine hesitancy and underimmunization. The doctors we interviewed (N = 20) and observed (N = 16 observations, subsample of 6 doctors from the interview sample) described how they screened, measured, and diagnosed patients' levels of vaccine hesitancy. Our results emphasize the meanings doctors associated with counseling hesitant patients, especially while managing their own professional responsibilities, legitimacy, and reputations among colleagues and patients. Doctors' discourses constructed the figure of 'problem patients,' characterized through their (potential) non-adherence to vaccination recommendations, desire for lengthy consultations and individualized counseling, and dogmatic ideologies running contra to biomedicine. Discussions around the dilemmas faced by doctors in vaccination consultations brings to the fore several key, yet underdiscussed, paradoxes concerning VH, patient-doctor relationships, and the constructs of 'good'/'bad' doctors and patients. These paradoxes revolve around expectations in Western societies for 'good' patients to be autonomous health-information seekers and active participants in clinical encounters, which research shows to be the case for many VH and underimmunizing individuals. However, in the eyes of many vaccination advocates and proponents of biomedical approaches, VH patients become 'bad' patients thru their risk of non-adherence, which has implications for the population at large. In these consultations, doctors find themselves conflicted around the expectations to promote vaccination while, at the same time, being active listeners and good communicators with those who question their biomedical training and legitimacy. Understanding these paradoxes highlights the need to better support HCPs in addressing VH in clinical practice. • Vaccine hesitancy stimulates discussion of paradoxes of good/bad doctors/patients. • Biomedical doctors sometimes perceive vaccine hesitant patients as problematic. • Biomedical doctors' vaccination approaches have implications for their reputations. • Qualitative interviews and ethnographic observations with biomedical doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How much does endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) correlate with negative attitudes towards vaccines? One of the difficulties of analysing the relationship between attitudes to CAM and attitudes towards vaccines rests in the complexity of both. Which form of CAM endorsement is associated with what type of reticence towards vaccines? While the literature on the relationship between CAM and attitudes towards vaccines is growing, this question has not yet been explored. In this study we present the results of a survey conducted in July 2021 among a representative sample of the French mainland adult population (n = 3087). Using cluster analysis, we identified five profiles of CAM attitudes and found that even among the most pro-CAM group, very few respondents disagreed with the idea that CAM should only be used as a complement to conventional medicine. We then compared these CAM attitudes to vaccine attitudes. Attitudes to CAM had a distinct impact as well as a combined effect on attitudes to different vaccines and vaccines in general. However, we also found a) that attitudes to CAM provide a very limited explanation of vaccine hesitancy and b) that, among the hesitant, pro-CAM attitudes are often combined with other traits associated with vaccine hesitancy such as distrust of health agencies, radical political preferences and low income. Indeed, we found that both CAM endorsement and vaccine hesitancy are more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged. Drawing on these results, we argue that, to better understand the relationship between CAM and vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to look at how both can reflect lack of access and recourse to mainstream medicine and distrust of public institutions. • We explore endorsement of CAM and Vaccine Hesitancy in their multifaceted nature. • VH is more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged and so is CAM endorsement. • Radical forms of endorsement of CAM are associated with distrust of vaccines. • But endorsement of CAM must be combined with other factors to result in strong VH. • CAM endorsement is a very limited explanation of negative attitudes to vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]