Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#286 Vaccine hesitancy in the office: What can I do?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What office-based interventions in primary care help reduce vaccine hesitancy?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Clinicians should explicitly recommend vaccination and focus discussion on the disease-prevention benefits to the individual more than correcting misinformation or on benefits to society. Interventions are more likely to be effective in those with neutral attitudes towards vaccination than those opposed.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
Focus on RCTs of interventions implementable in primary care. 315 participants, online, given information on disease risk [measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)], information correcting vaccine-autism link, or control; baseline vaccine attitude score 4.84 (6-point scale, higher more likely to vaccinate):1
  • Improvement in vaccine attitude scores:
    • Disease risk: 0.25, statistically different.
    • Autism risk: 0.08, not statistically different.
    • Control: 0.05.
  • Reanalysis2 shows biggest change among participants with “neutral” baseline vaccine attitude scores.
1759 participants, online, randomized to one of four pro-vaccination messages: correcting misinformation (i.e., autism risk), MMR illness education, visual images of MMR, sick child story, or control:3
  • No intervention improved intent to vaccinate.
    • In those with least-favorable vaccine attitudes, correction of misinformation decreased intent to vaccinate from 70% (control) to 45%.
802 participants, online, randomized to vaccine information statement on MMR (control), statement plus information on benefits to child, statement plus information on societal benefits, or all three:4
  • Likelihood of vaccinating child with MMR (on a 100-point scale): 86.3 (control), 91.6 (benefits to child), 86.4 (benefits to society), 90.8 (benefits to child and society).
    • Only statements including benefits to the child statistically different from control.
Limitations:
  • Studies looked at proxy measures (example: intention to vaccinate) rather than vaccine uptake.
  • No study was completed in a primary care office with a trusted healthcare provider.
  • No RCTs involved COVID-19 vaccines.
Context:
  • Vaccine hesitancy is a spectrum, not a binary “pro/anti.”5
  • “Strong” physician recommendations are associated with higher likelihood to vaccinate.6-8 
  • Discussion about vaccination ideally begins during pregnancy and continues in the neonatal period.9-11
  • A presumptive approach (example: “Jane is due for her vaccines today.”) is recommended over participatory (example: “Are we going to do Jane’s vaccines today?”).7,12


James Lanz-O'Brien April 24, 2021

I have found that in my practice, for a certain segment of the population that is skeptical of government efforts, informing them that they have already paid for the vaccine via their taxes and they will not be getting that money back from the government, so they might as well claim what is theirs, has increased uptake of flu shots, Pneumovax, etc. This is certainly anecdotal but it’s another avenue to take. You have to make it matter to your patient based on what matters to them.

Gilbert Bretecher May 3, 2021

I found this article useful in dealing with vaccinations


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#364 Facing the Evidence in Acne, Part II: Oral Antibiotics

How effective are oral antibiotics in treating acne of at least mild-moderate severity?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#363 Making a difference in indifference? Medications for apathy in dementia

In patients with dementia, how safe and effective are stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for treating apathy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Jennifer Potter MD CCFP
  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD

1. Horne Z, Powell D, Hummel JE, Holyoak KJ. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015; 112(3):10321-4.

2. Betsch C, Korn L, Holtmann C. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015; 112(49):E6725-6.

3. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. Pediatrics. 2014; 133(4):e835-42.

4. Hendrix KS, Finnell SME, Zimet GD, et al. Pediatrics. 2014; 134:e675-83.

5. Leask J, Kinnersley P, Jackson C, et al. BMC Pediatrics. 2012; 12:154.

6. Shen S, Dubey V. Can Fam Physician. 2019 Mar; 65:175-81.

7. Dempsey AF, Pyrzanowski J, et al. Vaccine. 2019; 37(10):1307-12.

8. Dempsey AF, Pyrzanoski J, Lockhart S, et al. Hum Vac Immunother. 2016; 2(6):1469-75.

9. Saitoh A, Saitoh A, Sato I, et al. Vaccine. 2017; 35(12):1645-51.

10. Glanz J, Wagner NM, Narwaney KJ, et al. Acad Pediatr. 2013; 13(5):481-8.

11. Hu Y, Chen Y, Wang Y, et al. Hum Vacc Immunother. 2017; 13(6):1477-84.

12. Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, et al. Pediatrics. 2013; 132(6);1037-46.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.