COMMUNICATING WITH PARENTS ABOUT VACCINATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

Monday, 17th of March 2014

[source]BMC Public Health[|source]

Health professionals have a central role in maintaining public trust in vaccination; this includes addressing parents  vaccine concerns. These concerns will likely increase as vaccination schedules inevitably become more complex, and parents have increased access to varied information through the internet and social media. Health professionals in this challenging communication environment, conducted in usually short consultations, have previously focused on “what” information to provide. Since parents increasingly want an improved dialogue about vaccinations, it is essential to focus on communication processes that build rapport and trust between the health professional and the parent.

 

In this report, the authors propose a framework to guide health professionals in communicating with parents about vaccination. By focusing on both what is said and how it is said, the report provides an integrated, generic approach going beyond simply the one-way provision of information. More details are accessible at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480952/

 

 

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A critical factor shaping parental attitudes to vaccination is the parent s interactions with health professionals. An effective interaction can address the concerns of vaccine supportive parents and motivate a hesitant parent towards vaccine acceptance. Poor communication can contribute to rejection of vaccinations or dissatisfaction with care. We sought to provide a framework for health professionals when communicating with parents about vaccination.

METHODS: Literature review to identify a spectrum of parent attitudes or  positions  on childhood vaccination with estimates of the proportion of each group based on population studies. Development of a framework related to each parental position with determination of key indicators, goals and strategies based on communication science, motivational interviewing and valid consent principles.

RESULTS: Five distinct parental groups were identified: the  unquestioning acceptor  (30–40%), the  cautious acceptor  (25–35%); the  hesitant  (20–30%); the  late or selective vaccinator  (2–27%); and the  refuser  of all vaccines (<2%). The goals of the encounter with each group will vary, depending on the parents  readiness to vaccinate. In all encounters, health professionals should build rapport, accept questions and concerns, and facilitate valid consent. For the hesitant, late or selective vaccinators, or refusers, strategies should include use of a guiding style and eliciting the parent s own motivations to vaccinate while, avoiding excessive persuasion and adversarial debates. It may be necessary to book another appointment or offer attendance at a specialized adverse events clinic. Good information resources should also be used.

CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals have a central role in maintaining public trust in vaccination, including addressing parents  concerns. These recommendations are tailored to specific parental positions on vaccination and provide a structured approach to assist professionals. They advocate respectful interactions that aim to guide parents towards quality decisions.