11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers and facilitators of vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19, influenza, and pertussis during pregnancy and in mothers of infants under two years: An umbrella review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Vaccination during pregnancy has been repeatedly demonstrated to be safe and effective in protecting against infection and associated harms for the mother, developing baby, and subsequent infant. However, maternal vaccination uptake remains low compared to the general population.

          Objectives

          An umbrella review to explore the barriers and facilitators to Influenza, Pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and within 2 years after childbirth, and to inform interventions to encourage uptake (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022327624).

          Methods

          Ten databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2009 and April 2022 exploring the predictors of vaccination or effectiveness of interventions to improve vaccination for Pertussis, Influenza, or COVD-19. Both pregnant women and mothers of infants under two years were included. Barriers and facilitators were organised using the WHO model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy through narrative synthesis, the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist assessed review quality, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was calculated.

          Results

          19 reviews were included. Considerable overlap was found especially for intervention reviews, and the quality of the included reviews and their primary studies varied. Sociodemographic factors were specifically researched in the context of COVID-19, exerting a small but consistent effect on vaccination. Concerns around the safety of vaccination particularly for the developing baby were a main barrier. While key facilitators included recommendation from a healthcare professional, previous vaccination, knowledge around vaccination, and communication with and support from social groups. Intervention reviews indicated multi-component interventions involving human interaction to be most effective.

          Conclusion

          The main barriers and facilitators for Influenza, Pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination have been identified and constitute the foundation for policy development at the international level. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, concerns about vaccine safety and side effects, and lack of healthcare professionals’ recommendations, are the most relevant factors of vaccine hesitancy. Adapting educational interventions to specific populations, person-to-person interaction, healthcare professionals’ involvement, and interpersonal support are important strategies to improve uptake.

          Related collections

          Most cited references97

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

            The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

              To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                2 March 2023
                2023
                2 March 2023
                : 18
                : 3
                : e0282525
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy
                [4 ] Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
                [5 ] Visiting Professor, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy
                Tehran University of Medical Sciences, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9997-6956
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-6513
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7185-4850
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3813-1490
                Article
                PONE-D-22-26074
                10.1371/journal.pone.0282525
                9980804
                36862698
                779721b7-2a39-4181-ac52-f35389e9969c
                © 2023 Nichol et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 20 September 2022
                : 17 February 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 22
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010052, Northumbria University;
                Award ID: Internal Funding
                Award Recipient :
                This study has been supported by an internal funding provided by Northumbria University at Newcastle Upon Tyne (UK) ( https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/). MT and JU received the funding. Bethany Nichol is the recipient. The funder had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Our study has been internally supported by the University of Northumbria (Newcastle). Due to this, we don’t have a formal letter from the funder, as usually required according to the PLOS One guidelines for the external funders.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Influenza
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Infectious Disease Control
                Vaccines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Bacterial Diseases
                Pertussis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Furthermore the protocol is available in PLOS One (PONE-D-22-20568, accepted) and in PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=327624). More materials are also avaliable in OSF ( https://osf.io/g94nu/).
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article