Parental and provider vaccine hesitancy and non-timely childhood vaccination in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE: Although medical providers are a trusted vaccination information source for parents, they do not universally support vaccination. Complementary medicine (CM) providers are particularly likely to hold vaccine hesitant (VH) views, and VH parents often consult with them. Little research compares VH of parents and providers, and if and how each is associated with uptake of recommended childhood vaccines. METHODS: We defined non-timely receipt as recommended vaccines given > 1 month later than officially recommended, based on vaccination records. We administered versions of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) 5-item survey instrument to 1256 parents and their children's pediatricians (N = 112, 40 CM-oriented, 72 biomedical [not CM-oriented]) to identify moderately (PACV-score 5-6) and highly (PACV-score 7+) hesitant providers/parents. We obtained multivariable adjusted odds ratios to test relationships between parental VH and provider type/VH, and between non-timely receipt of selected childhood vaccines and parental VH and provider type/VH. RESULTS: No biomedical providers were VH, 9 CM providers were moderately VH, and 17 were highly VH. Parents seeing moderately and highly hesitant providers had adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for being VH = 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-14.0) and AOR = 31.3 (95% CI 16.8-58.3), respectively. Across all vaccine uptake endpoints, children of moderately and highly hesitant parents had 1.9-3.8 and 7.1-12.3 higher odds of non-timely vaccination, and children seeing highly hesitant CM providers had 4.9-9.4 higher odds. Children seeing moderately hesitant CM providers had 3.3 higher odds of non-timely vaccination for the 1st dose of measles and 3.5 higher odds for 1st dose of polio/pertussis/tetanus. CONCLUSION: VH by both parents and providers each is associated with non-timely childhood vaccination. As VH parents are more likely to consult with VH providers, interventions aimed at increasing timely vaccination need to primarily target VH providers and their clients

Parental and provider vaccine hesitancy and non-timely childhood vaccination in Switzerland

Objective Although medical providers are a trusted vaccination information source for parents, they do not universally support vaccination. Complementary medicine (CM) providers are particularly likely to hold vaccine hesitant (VH) views, and VH parents often consult with them. Little research compares VH of parents and providers, and if and how each is associated with uptake of recommended childhood vaccines. Methods We defined non-timely receipt as recommended vaccines given > 1 month later than officially recommended, based on vaccination records. We administered versions of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) 5-item survey instrument to 1256 parents and their children’s pediatricians (N = 112, 40 CM-oriented, 72 biomedical [not CM-oriented]) to identify moderately (PACV-score 5–6) and highly (PACV-score 7+) hesitant providers/parents. We obtained multivariable adjusted odds ratios to test relationships between parental VH and provider type/VH, and between non-timely receipt of selected childhood vaccines and parental VH and provider type/VH. Results No biomedical providers were VH, 9 CM providers were moderately VH, and 17 were highly VH. Parents seeing moderately and highly hesitant providers had adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for being VH = 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1–14.0) and AOR = 31.3 (95% CI 16.8–58.3), respectively. Across all vaccine uptake endpoints, children of moderately and highly hesitant parents had 1.9–3.8 and 7.1–12.3 higher odds of non-timely vaccination, and children seeing highly hesitant CM providers had 4.9–9.4 higher odds. Children seeing moderately hesitant CM providers had 3.3 higher odds of non-timely vaccination for the 1st dose of measles and 3.5 higher odds for 1st dose of polio/pertussis/tetanus. Conclusion VH by both parents and providers each is associated with non-timely childhood vaccination. As VH parents are more likely to consult with VH providers, interventions aimed at increasing timely vaccination need to primarily target VH providers and their clients

HPV vaccine awareness, knowledge and information sources among youth in Switzerland: a mixed methods study

Objectives. We aimed to provide a detailed characterisation of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine awareness, knowledge and information sources in the HPV vaccine decision-making process of youth, both male and female, in Switzerland. Design. With a mixed-method study design, we conducted quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews, which lasted 20–45 min. Setting and participants. We recruited participants, 15–26 years of age, in physicians’ offices, in a local sexual health clinic, and during military enlistment. We administered quantitative questionnaires to 997 youth participants (585 male, 412 female) and conducted qualitative interviews with 31 youth (17 male, 14 female). Primary and secondary outcome measures. We assessed HPV vaccine awareness, knowledge, information sources and vaccination status. Results. In the study’s quantitative component, 108 (20%) male and 262 (65%) female participants had received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine. 697 (70%) participants were knowledgeable about the HPV vaccine. Females were more likely to be knowledgeable than males (342/412 (83%) vs 355/585 (61%); p4 years prior to the data collection, HPV vaccine knowledge was higher among females than males, and a female-gendered perception of HPV vaccine remains prevalent. Internet and social media were minor HPV vaccine information sources. Study findings demonstrate that HPV knowledge matters for HPV vaccine uptake and suggest that we should improve HPV information quality and access for youth, particularly by tailoring knowledge campaigns to young men