Royal society of Canada COVID-19 report: Enhancing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Canada

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance exists on a continuum from a minority who strongly oppose vaccination, to the moveable middle heterogeneous group with varying uncertainty levels about acceptance or hesitancy, to the majority who state willingness to be vaccinated. Intention for vaccine acceptance varies over time. COVID-19 vaccination decisions are influenced by many factors including knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; social networks; communication environment; COVID-19 community rate; cultural and religious influences; ease of access; and the organization of health and community services and policies. Reflecting vaccine acceptance complexity, the Royal Society of Canada Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance developed a framework with four major factor domains that influence vaccine acceptance (people, communities, health care workers; immunization knowledge; health care and public health systems including federal/provincial/territorial/indigenous factors) - each influencing the others and all influenced by education, infection control, extent of collaborations, and communications about COVID-19 immunization. The Working Group then developed 37 interrelated recommendations to support COVID vaccine acceptance nested under four categories of responsibility: 1. People and Communities, 2. Health Care Workers, 3. Health Care System and Local Public Health Units, and 4. Federal/Provincial/Territorial/Indigenous. To optimize outcomes, all must be engaged to ensure co-development and broad ownership

Factors associated with parents’ experiences using a knowledge translation tool for vaccination pain management: a qualitative study

Background: Vaccination is a common painful procedure for children. Parents’ concern regarding vaccination pain is a significant driver of vaccine hesitancy. Despite the wealth of evidence-based practices available for managing vaccination pain, parents lack knowledge of, and access to, these strategies. Knowledge translation (KT) tools can communicate evidence-based information to parents, however little is known about what factors influence parents’ use of these tools. A two-page, electronic KT tool on psychological, physical, and pharmacological vaccination pain management strategies for children, was shared with parents as part of a larger mixed methods study, using explanatory sequential design, exploring factors related to uptake of this KT tool. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand what influenced parents’ perceptions of the relevance of the KT tool, as well as their decision as to whether to use the tool. Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was used. A total of 20 parents of children aged 0–17 years (n = 19 mothers) reviewed the KT tool ahead of their child’s upcoming vaccination and participated in a semi-structured interview at follow-up. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Results: The analysis generated three interrelated themes which described factors related to parents’ use of the KT tool: (1) Relevance to parents’ needs and circumstances surrounding their child’s vaccination; (2) Alignment with parents’ personal values around, and experiences with, vaccination pain management (e.g., the importance of managing pain); and (3) Support from the clinical environment for implementing evidence-based strategies (e.g., physical clinical environment and quality of interactions with the health care provider). Conclusions: Several factors were identified as central to parents’ use of the KT tool, including the information itself and the clinical environment. When the tool was perceived as relevant, aligned with parents’ values, and was supported by health care providers, parents were more inclined to use the KT tool to manage their children’s vaccination pain. Future research could explore other factors related to promoting engagement and uptake when creating parent-directed KT tools for a range of health-related contexts

Methodology for knowledge synthesis of the management of vaccination pain and needle fear

Background: A knowledge synthesis was undertaken to inform the development of a revised and expanded clinical practice guideline about managing vaccination pain in children to include the management of pain across the lifespan and the management of fear in individuals with high levels of needle fear. This manuscript describes the methodological details of the knowledge synthesis and presents the list of included clinical questions, critical and important outcomes, search strategy, and search strategy results. Methods: The Grading of Assessments, Recommendations, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Cochrane methodologies provided the general framework. The project team voted on clinical questions for inclusion and critically important and important outcomes. A broad search strategy was used to identify relevant randomized-controlled trials and quasi-randomized-controlled trials. Quality of research evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and quality across studies was assessed using GRADE. Multiple measures of the same construct within studies (eg, observer-rated and parent-rated infant distress) were combined before pooling. The standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) or relative risk and 95% CI was used to express the effects of an intervention. Results: Altogether, 55 clinical questions were selected for inclusion in the knowledge synthesis; 49 pertained to pain management during vaccine injections and 6 pertained to fear management in individuals with high levels of needle fear. Pain, fear, and distress were typically prioritized as critically important outcomes across clinical questions. The search strategy identified 136 relevant studies. Conclusions: This manuscript describes the methodological details of a knowledge synthesis about pain management during vaccination and fear management in individuals with high levels of needle fear. Subsequent manuscripts in this series will present the results for the included questions

Measuring vaccine hesitancy: The development of a survey tool.

In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy

Feasibility of implementation of CARD™ for school-based immunizations in Calgary, Alberta: a cluster trial

Background: Negative experiences with school-based immunizations can contribute to vaccine hesitancy in youth and adulthood. We developed an evidence-based, multifaceted and customizable intervention to improve the immunization experience at school called the CARD™ (C-Comfort, A-Ask, R-Relax, D-Distract) system. We evaluated the feasibility of CARD™ implementation for school-based immunizations in Calgary, Canada. Methods: In a mixed methods study, two Community Health Centres providing immunization services, including 5 schools each with grade 9 students (aged approximately 14 years), were randomized to CARD™ or control (usual care). In the CARD™ group, public health staff and students were educated about coping strategies prior to immunization clinics. Clinics were organized to reduce fear and to support student’s choices for coping strategies. Public health staff in the CARD™ group participated in a focus group discussion afterwards. We sought a recruitment rate of 80% for eligible schools, an external stakeholder focus group (e.g., school staff) with 6 or more individuals, 85% of individual injection-related data acquisition (student and immunizer surveys), and 80% absolute agreement between raters for a subset of data that were double-coded. Across focus groups, we examined perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and fidelity of CARD™. Results: Nine (90%) of eligible schools participated. Of 219 students immunized, injection-related student and immunizer data forms were acquired for 195 (89.0%) and 196 (89.5%), respectively. Reliability of data collection was high. Fifteen public health and 5 school staff participated in separate focus groups. Overall, attitudes towards CARD™ were positive and compliance with individual components of CARD™ was high. Public health staff expressed skepticism regarding the value of student participation in the CARD™ system. Suggestions were made regarding processes to refine implementation. Conclusion: While most outcome criteria were satisfied and overall perceptions of implementation outcomes were positive, some important challenges and opportunities were identified. Feedback is being used to inform a large cluster trial that will evaluate the impact of CARD™ during school-based immunizations. Trial registration: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03948633); Submitted April 24, 2019

Developing Product Label Information to Support Evidence-Informed Use of Vaccines in Pregnancy

Background: 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. Purpose: To develop clear evidence-based language about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pregnancy for inclusion in vaccine product labels. Methods: 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. Principal results: 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 preclinical 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. Conclusions: 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

Procedural and physical interventions for vaccine injections systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials

Background: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination. Design/Methods: Databases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Results: A total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95%CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95%CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95%CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults. Conclusions: Interventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension

Exposure-based Interventions for the management of individuals with high levels of needle fear across the lifespan: a clinical practice guideline and call for further research

Needle fear typically begins in childhood and represents an important health-related issue across the lifespan. Individuals who are highly fearful of needles frequently avoid health care. Although guidance exists for managing needle pain and fear during procedures, the most highly fearful may refuse or abstain from such procedures. The purpose of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide actionable instruction on the management of a particular health concern; this guidance emerges from a systematic process. Using evidence from a rigorous systematic review interpreted by an expert panel, this CPG provides recommendations on exposure-based interventions for high levels of needle fear in children and adults. The AGREE-II, GRADE, and Cochrane methodologies were used. Exposure-based interventions were included. The included evidence was very low quality on average. Strong recommendations include the following. In vivo (live/in person) exposure-based therapy is recommended (vs. no treatment) for children seven years and older and adults with high levels of needle fear. Non-in vivo (imaginal, computer-based) exposure (vs. no treatment) is recommended for individuals (over seven years of age) who are unwilling to undergo in vivo exposure. Although there were no included trials which examined children \u3c 7 years, exposure-based interventions are discussed as good clinical practice. Implementation considerations are discussed and clinical tools are provided. Utilization of these recommended practices may lead to improved health outcomes due to better health care compliance. Research on the understanding and treatment of high levels of needle fear is urgently needed; specific recommendations are provided