Search

Background: The quality of interactions between health workers (HWs) and caregivers is key in vaccine acceptance. To optimize this, HWs need knowledge about best vaccine communication practices in person and on social media. Most pre-service curricula do not include such approaches. COVID-19 necessitated the International Pediatric Association (IPA) to shift from in-person train the trainer workshops to developing an online Vaccine Trust Course to address these gaps., Method: The seven-module, 8-hour Vaccine Trust Course was offered online in seven languages and promoted globally. Course outcomes for participants between September 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021 were assessed using enrollment, participation, and completion data; pre-and post-training surveys of attitudes, knowledge, and practice skills; and follow-up practice surveys 3 months post course completion., Results: Of the 4,926 participants across 137 countries who registered; 2,381 (48.3 %) started the course, with 1,217 (51.1 %) completing. The majority were 25 - 39 years (57 %), female (57 %), and in pediatrics (70 %); 31 % came from India. 62 % of completers rated course structure/design as excellent, 36 % as good. Over 80 % rated the content as the most valuable aspect. Three months post training, 61 % HWs reported increased empathy towards caregivers, confidence while counseling and increased vaccine acceptance amongst their patients. 21 % identified the course as the only factor in these positive changes., Conclusion: Shifting from face-to-face to online training due to the COVID-19 pandemic helped increase the global reach of HWs course engagement and uptake. Trained HWs reported increased empathy towards caregivers and confidence while counseling and increased patient vaccine acceptance., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper: [Walter A Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Tina D Purnat is staff of the World Health Organization, is alone responsible for the views expressed in this article, and does not represent the views of the organization.]., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Much has been written about the patient-physician relationship over the years. This relationship is essential in maintaining trust in the complex arena of modern diagnostic techniques, treatment and prevention, including vaccines and vaccine safety. However, a great deal of this material was written from the viewpoint of clinicians and academics. The patient voice may be positive or negative, fragmented or complex. Information sources are weighed and treated differently, according to the value system and risk perceptions of the individual. In post-trust societies, when people have less confidence in health authorities, communication needs to be more than a paternalistic top-down process. Notions of empowerment and individual patient choice are becoming crucial in medical care. The 'voice of the patient', which includes healthy individuals receiving vaccines, needs to be heard, considered and addressed. With respect to childhood immunizations, this will be the voice of the parent or caregiver. The key to addressing any concerns could be to listen more and to develop a communication style that is trust-based and science-informed. Regulatory agencies are encouraging clinical and patient-reported outcomes research under the umbrella of personalized medicine, and this is an important step forward. This paper attempts to reflect the paradigm shift towards increasing attention to the patient voice in vaccination and vaccine safety., (Copyright © 2016 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The highly complex and controversial topic of vaccine safety communication warrants innovative, user-centered solutions that would start with gaining mutual respect while taking into account the needs, concerns and underlying motives of patients, parents and physicians. To this end, a non-profit collaborative project was conducted by The Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative, an international think tank aiming to promote vaccine safety research and communication, and the School of Design Thinking in Potsdam, Germany, the first school for innovation in Europe. The revolutionary concept of the Design Thinking approach is to group students in small multi-disciplinary teams. As a result they can generate ground-breaking ideas by combining their expertise and different points of view. The team agreed to address the following design challenge question: "How might we enable physicians to encourage parents and children to prevent infectious diseases?" The current article describes, step-by step, the ideation and innovation process as well as first tangible outcomes of the project.

Vaccines are among the most effective measures to control and prevent infectious diseases. Yet, the topic of vaccination is difficult to communicate, as it bears upon individual versus common good. The efficacy and safety of vaccines can only be shown by the absence of undesired events, such as vaccine-preventable diseases or adverse events following immunization. The authors of this paper view accurate, transparent and timely vaccine-safety communication to the media and general public as a core responsibility of healthcare providers. The authors wish to explore potential difficulties faced by immunization specialists when talking to the media, and suggest how to successfully convey vaccination messages to the general public.

In times of declining immunization rates among children in many countries and an increasing threat of potentially vaccine-preventable diseases, there is a strong need for new strategies to improve trust in vaccinations and acceptance of recommendations, especially in parents of infants and children. A survey to evaluate vaccination acceptance has been conducted in Vienna, Austria, based on a US CDC survey, applying a cross-sectional approach with districts and public as well as private kindergartens and preschools as selection base. The survey aimed to investigate the impact of parent satisfaction with, and overall trust in the physician on vaccine acceptance, as well as the impact of quality and completeness of safety information delivered during the vaccination consultation. Overall 1101 parents, predominantly (84.2%) mothers, participated in the survey. The majority (82.7%) of participants had a generally positive view concerning childhood vaccination. However, 25.1% refused at least one of the recommended vaccinations. In multivariate analysis, confidence in vaccinations was significantly influenced by education (lower confidence at higher levels of education), gender (higher confidence in females), and positively associated with trust in physician, smooth vaccination procedure, and information about vaccine risks. Similar results were obtained for compliance with recommended vaccinations with information about vaccine benefits being the most important predictor. This large survey indicates an important role of the physician in communicating balanced information about benefits and risks associated with childhood vaccinations. A trustworthy parent-physician relationship is crucial for vaccination decisions of parents.

Not only the general public, but also those studying to become health professionals, are struggling to keep up with a growing body of evidence and increasingly complex information about the many different types of vaccines available to date. At the same time, a number of increasingly complex subjects of study are competing for their attention during undergraduate and graduate education. In many medical school curricula in German-speaking countries, the subject of vaccines has been entirely omitted, or is regarded a minor subtopic. During the studies, most medical school curricula in German-speaking countries do not offer obligatory courses and/ or hands-on training vaccinology in vaccination. In Germany, private pediatricians administer the majority of immunizations. Even during postgraduate training programs in pediatrics, which are largely hospital-based, vaccinations are rarely a topic, and vaccinology remains a "hobby" and a "field without lobby" lacking specific certification requirements. Studies of acceptance of vaccines among health professionals and medical students have shown that many may still have their own doubts and uncertainties about vaccines revealing a number of unanswered questions during their studies and postgraduate training.

Any ambiguity in texts used in the communication about vaccines can not only interfere with comprehension, but also generate safety and liability issues. Within a survey on the quality of written protocols for at-risk interventional procedures and sanitary crises, we analyzed documents relating to vaccination, and among them, the "package-leaflet" of an anti-H1N1 influenza vaccine, widely disseminated to the public in 2009-2010. Among the most common mistakes, we observed that 1) language was not always adjusted to the non-specialist's level of knowledge; 2) chronology, logic, consistency, and homogeneity were often missing; 3) crucial pieces of information were disseminated all over the text, 4) use of the passive voice did not distinguish between instructions and information; 5) use of synonyms could be misleading and impair translation. We propose the use of "Controlled language" (CL) to improve the situation. By constraining lexicon, grammar and syntax, CL is a way to write documents that are clear, accurate and devoid of ambiguity. However, the set of rules necessary to write in CL is difficult to memorize. We thus developed authoring software (Rédacticiel Prolipsia) to make the creation of a CL by linguists and its use by health professionals easy and adapted to any domain. It may considerably improve the writing of vaccine package inserts/leaflets. It could be used to write information documents about vaccines and their safety, and operating procedures for professionals to prepare, store, and administer vaccines, decide upon proper indication of vaccines, and follow patients after vaccine injection.

Only few health intervention programs have been as successful as vaccination programs with respect to preventing morbidity and mortality in developing countries. However, the success of a vaccination program is threatened by rumors and misunderstanding about the risks of vaccines. It is short-sighted to plan the introduction of vaccines into developing countries unless effective vaccine safety monitoring systems are in place. Such systems that track adverse events following immunization (AEFI) is currently lacking in most developing countries. Therefore, any rumor may affect the entire vaccination program. Public health authorities should implement the safety monitoring system of vaccines, and disseminate safety issues in a proactive mode. Effective safety surveillance systems should allow for the conduct of both traditional and alternative epidemiologic studies through the use of prospective data sets. The vaccine safety data link implemented in Vietnam in mid-2002 indicates that it is feasible to establish a vaccine safety monitoring system for the communication of vaccine safety in developing countries. The data link provided the investigators an opportunity to evaluate AEFI related to measles vaccine. Implementing such vaccine safety monitoring system is useful in all developing countries. The system should be able to make objective and clear communication regarding safety issues of vaccines, and the data should be reported to the public on a regular basis for maintaining their confidence in vaccination programs.

Objectives: Vaccine safety surveillance is highly dependent on accurate reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI). An online survey was conducted to assess the utilization of AEFI reporting standards and pathways among pediatricians in Germany, and in Russia where pediatric specialization begins in medical school., Methods: In May 2011, a 31-item online questionnaire was sent to members of the German Professional Association for Pediatricians (BVKJ) and the Union of Pediatricians of Russia (UPR), capturing information on vaccine safety training, awareness of AEFI reporting pathways, and use of standardized case definitions for the ascertainment of AEFI. A convenience sample of 1,632 completed online surveys was analyzed., Results: Participating pediatricians reported spending approximately 50 min per 8-hour workday on vaccine safety consultations, but only 42 % (56 % UPR, 26 % BVKJ) have ever received any formal vaccine safety training. Two-thirds reported having observed AEFI in their practice, but only one-third utilized standardized case definitions for case ascertainment. Only 35 % of participants named accurate AEFI reporting pathways. Every second pediatrician would report AEFI to institutions that are not primarily in charge of vaccine safety surveillance; the remaining reports would either be lost or delayed. Pediatricians who had received formal vaccine safety training were significantly more likely to apply international safety standards and to report adequately, both at the p < 0.05 level., Conclusion: Pediatricians play a key role in the post-marketing surveillance of vaccine safety. The lack of training represents a missed opportunity. There may be a role for professional societies to improve vaccine safety training.

Vaccines offer the most cost-effective approach to controlling infectious diseases. Access to vaccines remains unequal and suboptimal, particularly in poorer developing countries. Introduction of new vaccines and long-term sustainability of immunization programs will require proactive planning from conception to implementation. International and national coordination efforts as well as local and cultural factors need to be known and accounted for. Adequate infrastructure should be in place for the monitoring of disease burden, vaccine effectiveness and vaccine safety, based on the common terminology and international consensus. This overview paper aims to raise awareness of the importance of introduction efforts for vaccines of special relevance to resource-poor countries. The target audiences are those involved in immunization programs, from planning or oversight roles to frontline providers, as well as health care professionals.

With more vaccines becoming available worldwide, vaccine research is on the rise in developing countries. To gain a better understanding of safety reporting from vaccine clinical research in developing countries, we conducted a systematic review in Medline and Embase (1989-2011) of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting safety outcomes with ≥50% developing country participation (PROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42012002025). Developing country vaccine RCTs were analyzed with respect to the number of participants, age groups studied, inclusion of safety information, number of reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI), type and duration of safety follow-up, use of standardized AEFI case definitions, grading of AEFI severity, and the reporting of levels of diagnostic certainty for AEFI. The systematic search yielded a total number of 50 randomized vaccine clinical trials investigating 12 different vaccines, most commonly rotavirus and malaria vaccines. In these trials, 94,459 AEFI were reported from 446,908 participants receiving 735,920 vaccine doses. All 50 RCTs mentioned safety outcomes with 70% using definitions for at least one AEFI. The most commonly defined AEFI was fever (27), followed by local (16) and systemic reactions (14). Logistic regression analysis revealed a positive correlation between the implementation of a fever case definition and the reporting rate for fever as an AEFI (p=0.027). Overall, 16 different definitions for fever and 7 different definitions for erythema were applied. Predefined AEFI case definitions by the Brighton Collaboration were used in only two out of 50 RCTs. The search was limited to RCTs published in English or German and may be missing studies published locally. The reported systematic review suggests room for improvement with respect to the harmonization of safety reporting from developing country vaccine clinical trials and the implementation of standardized case definitions., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)