Skip to main content
Download PDF

Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals

BMC Pediatrics volume 12, Article number: 154 (2012) Cite this article

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 specialised 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.

Peer Review reports

Background

The benefits of childhood vaccination are well established [1]. Vaccine uptake rates in most industrialised countries are generally high. However, two broad parental factors are associated with under-vaccination. The first relates to socioeconomic disadvantage where, despite some motivation to have their children vaccinated, parents or carers (hereafter referred to as ‘parents’) lack access to adequate resources and support to overcome logistical barriers such as a lack of transport or childcare [2, 3]. The second factor, and the focus of this paper, relates to parents’ concerns about the safety or necessity of vaccines [4, 5].

A critical factor shaping parental attitudes to vaccination is the parents’ interactions with health professionals. An effective interaction can address the concerns of vaccine supportive parents and motivate a hesitant parent towards vaccine acceptance [5, 6]. Conversely, poor communication can contribute to rejection of vaccinations or dissatisfaction with care [7–9]. Such poor communication often results from a belief by the health professional that vaccine refusal arises from ignorance which can simply be addressed by persuading or providing more information. Such an approach is counter-productive because it fails to account for the complexity of reasons underpinning vaccine refusal and may even result in a backfire effect [10]. Parental vaccination decisions are based on an array of factors and parents integrate information according to their experiential and social contexts [11, 12]. A parent’s trust in the source of information may be more important than what is in the information [13, 14].

Health professionals have a central role in maintaining public trust in vaccination; this includes addressing parents’ vaccine concerns [15]. 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 [16]. In recognition of the need to support health professionals in this challenging communication task conducted in usually short consultations, recommendations have been proposed [17–21]. Previously, most of these have focused on what is said, that is, the information that should be given to parents. Few have addressed how health professionals should engage with parents [17–21]. Since it is clear that parents want an improved dialogue about vaccinations [22–24], it is essential to focus on communication processes that build rapport and trust between the health professional and the parent [25–27].

We propose here a framework to guide health professionals in communicating with parents about vaccination. By focusing on both what is said and how it is said, we attempt to provide an integrated, generic approach going beyond simply the one-way provision of information.

The framework is informed by evidence from decision making and communication research and is applicable for use by all health professionals in their vaccination discussions, particularly where there might be parental reluctance to vaccinate. It focuses on recommended childhood vaccines but is also applicable to discussions with other groups recommended for vaccination. We propose categories or ‘positions’ that reflect different parental attitudes and behaviours regarding vaccination and suggest specific communication strategies tailored to each position. The overarching goal of the encounter is to promote quality decisions and, ultimately, vaccination.

Development of the framework

The framework was developed to:

  1. a)

    be acceptable to health professionals

  2. b)

    increase health professional and parent satisfaction with discussions about vaccination

  3. c)

    increase a health professional’s self-efficacy (sense of confidence and competence) in relation to communicating about vaccination

  4. d)

    increase the likelihood of the parent making a decision based on evidence (by increasing access to quality information)

  5. e)

    encourage uptake of recommended vaccines.

There were four stages in developing the framework: a literature review, classifying parental positions on vaccination, matching strategies to these positions and assessing their face validity with heath professionals.

Stage 1: Literature review

This aimed to (1) identify existing research that had classified parents’ positions based on their attitudes and behaviours regarding childhood vaccination and (2) identify articles that contained strategies to communicate with parents about vaccination. We searched MEDLINE (1996–), PsycINFO (1967–), CINAHL (1982–), and EMBASE (1980–) in September 2010. The following combination of keywords and associated MESH headings (identified for each database) was used: child$ or infant$ or newborn$ or baby or babies AND vaccin$ or immunis$ or immuniz AND decision$ or choice behavio$ or choic$ or communicat$ or consult$.

The searches identified 3168 total hits (including duplicates) which was reduced to 112 after screening titles and removing duplicates. Of these, we identified three studies that proposed a spectrum spanning the parental positions on vaccination. These are described in Table 1[28–30]. We found nine papers advising health professionals on communicating with patients about vaccination but none that tailored communication to empirically derived parental positions [17–21, 31–34].

Table 1 Summary of studies identifying parental positions on vaccination
Full size table

Stage 2: Identifying parental positions on vaccination

We reviewed the classifications presented within the three identified studies, [28–30] summarised parental positions from each study, and discussed their relevance to vaccine communication. A discrete number of parental positions relating to vaccination attitudes and behaviour were proposed, discussed and revised based on the categories’ applicability to clinical interactions and international relevance. The final set of five parental positions are described in Table 2. A range for the approximate proportion of each group is given based on population surveys or registers from the USA, European Union, New Zealand, and Australia [4, 28, 35–44].

Table 2 Parental positions on vaccination according to attitudes and behaviours
Full size table

Stage 3: Matching strategies to parental positions

For each parental position, we proposed an overall communication approach then more specific guidance tailored to each parental position (1 3 and 4). Given that no tailored guidance was identified in the literature review, the specific strategies were informed by the literature on health communication; [48, 49] our professional and educational experience; valid consent principles, [50] and those of motivational interviewing which uses a guiding style to promote healthy behaviours [51].

Stage 4: Seeking feedback from health professionals

To assess general acceptability of the framework and recommendations, accredited nurse immunisation providers were presented with them in three annual update sessions, and 104 completed a short questionnaire about usefulness (scored from 1 ‘not at all useful’ to 10 ‘extremely useful’), realism (not at all/somewhat/very), strengths (open question), and areas for improvement (open question). Feedback was positive with a median score for usefulness of 8.8 (range 3–10); 74% rated the framework as ‘very realistic’, 26% as ‘somewhat realistic’, while no-one rated it as ‘not at all realistic’. General practice immunisation coordinators, immunisation experts, and a consumer representative (n = 20) all provided verbal feedback on the draft framework. All feedback was used to inform revisions of the recommendations.

The framework

How discussions are addressed

While the majority of parents accept vaccination (Table 2), attendance at the consultation should not be presumed to indicate consent. Ideally parents will receive credible information prior to their child’s appointment. Health professionals have a responsibility to ensure that parental consent for vaccination is valid. This requires more than simply giving information and is built upon a relationship and interaction [50, 52].

Building trust is paramount in any healthcare interaction. As noted by Benin et al, the trusted health professional is one who: has spent time with the child and parent; listened to, accepted and addressed their concerns; possesses the necessary scientific information; and uses a whole-person approach that is not patronising but treats parents and their children as individuals [29]. Table 3 lists unhelpful and helpful approaches to communication with all parents.

Table 3 Unhelpful and helpful strategies for addressing parental concerns about vaccination
Full size table

Health professionals’ body language ideally indicates that the discussions are important and distractions, such as using computers while talking, are best avoided. They need to speedily establish rapport and clarify parental concerns, avoiding the temptation to minimise or dismiss these (“Oh there’s nothing to worry about, vaccination is very safe nowadays”) [27, 53]. Instead it is important to fully understand parents’ concerns and motivations using open questions and empathic responses [27]. Although health professionals may be reluctant to encourage questions [27, 54], with practice, targeted questions allow health professionals to tailor their discussions [51].

Giving information is an integral part of the immunisation encounter. Here, the skills for efficient information provision are useful - primarily ‘signposting’ and ‘chunking and checking’ (see 1 5, 6 and 7 for examples) [49]. Signposting is the skill of clearly indicating to the parent (or patient) the different phases of the consultation. Chunking and checking refers to the provision of information in small chunks followed by checking the person’s understanding. This technique contrasts with the common practice of providing much larger amounts of information before checking, which can lead to information overload.

Table 4 Parental position, with the recommendations for each group
Full size table
Table 5 Example of dialogue with the unquestioning or cautious acceptor parent
Full size table
Table 6 Example of dialogue with the hesitant parent
Full size table

What to include in discussions with parents

It is important to communicate risk effectively [56]. It is recommended that health professionals give information about common but minor side effects, and rare but serious ones [57]. Written materials, web links, or decision aids given prior to, or used during, the consultation can be helpful [58–60]. In a recent UK survey 156 primary health care professionals viewed the inclusion of a web link for an online MMR decision aid contained in a parents’ MMR pre-vaccination invitation letter as an appropriate way to support parents coming to the consultation [61]. Written resources may be available in electronic/online or paper format. These vary widely between countries and clinicians should be familiar with how to locate them.

Risk communication is best tailored to individuals. In general terms outcomes are better understood when they are specified and when their probability is given in numbers (e.g. 1 in 1000) although some may prefer words [62]. When presenting probabilities, there remains conflicting evidence over whether natural frequencies (e.g., 1 in 100) or percentages are preferable [63]. A recent study concluded that percentages may be better understood than natural frequencies [64]. To avoid confusion, a consistent denominator should be used when presenting event rates for comparison [65]. Visual representations of probability have also been recommended and are commonly used in decision aids [59, 61].

Specific information is most helpful when it is timely, consistent, relevant, up to date, and, where available, local. Parents should also be advised about how to manage the common side effects of vaccinations and how to seek help if they have further concerns [66].

A tailored approach

Evidence from other areas of healthcare practice suggests adapting the principles of motivational interviewing. This is a form of communication that uses a guiding style, rather than a directing style, for discussions where there is ambivalence and resistance to change [51]. Motivational interviewing involves asking questions that clarify an individual’s responsiveness to change and elicits their own motivations for change. The method has demonstrated effectiveness in a range of health behaviours [67]. In this particular context, the ambivalence and resistance to change relates to whether or not a parent should have their child vaccinated rather than focusing on a behaviour such as quitting smoking.

It should also be borne in mind that motivational interviewing builds upon the Transtheoretical Model [68]. This is a framework for understanding the process of behaviour change where individuals may pass through five stages: precontemplation, where they are not considering change; contemplation, where they seriously consider change; preparation, where they plan and commit to change; action, where they make a specific behavioural change which if successful, leads to maintenance of that behaviour, the fifth stage.

Accordingly, Table 4 strategies tailored to the parent’s stage. The majority of parents are in the action and maintenance stage (cautious or unquestioning acceptors). Some will be contemplating or even preparing to immunise – what we describe as ‘hesitant’ parents. Late or selective vaccinators, who are willing to have some vaccines, may also contemplate full vaccination if guided by a health professional [5]. ‘Vaccine refusers’ are usually in the pre-contemplation stage where they are not considering vaccinating at all. It is unrealistic to expect such parents to move to the action stage at one visit. However, the goal may be to guide them toward contemplating vaccination. This would be done by asking permission to discuss; encouraging them to explore the pros and cons of their decision; and eliciting their own possible motivations to change (Table 4).

Tables 5, 6 and 7 give examples of suggested dialogue for unquestioning and cautious acceptors, hesitant, and refusing parents. For late or selective vaccinators, strategies can apply from those suggested for hesitant and refusing parents. A parent’s starting position can be clarified with initial questions (How do you feel about the vaccinations?) and observation of their body language.

It may also be possible to flag specific questions or concerns for discussion prior to the consultation. For example, a question prompt sheet for parents to use in consultations about MMR vaccination was positively evaluated by 46 parents in a UK study [69]. Specifically parents reported that the prompt sheet enabled them to feel confident in ‘raising the issue of MMR’ with their GP or nurse.

The goals for the consultation will vary according to the parent’s position. Health professionals should avoid a mismatch between the parent’s expectations and needs and their own assumptions. For example, a ‘hesitant’ father may be planning only to obtain information but feels he is being pressured to vaccinate. The cost may be loss of his trust and a subsequent unwillingness to return. Similarly, a ‘refusing’ mother might be approached by a health professional who is intent on changing her mind [70]. This ‘righting reflex’ is the natural response of health professionals to instinctively ‘put right’ healthcare problems rather than finding out patients’ concerns or points of view. It may lead to an adversarial position and further entrench the parent’s views, closing the door to any future possible gains [71]. In this situation, a better goal would be to build a rapport that may lead to willingness for further discussion or partial vaccination. Vaccine-refusing parents may be willing to consider an alternative schedule and may be willing to hear how to recognise and respond early to signs that their child may have a vaccine-preventable disease (Table 4).

Table 7 Example of dialogue with the vaccine-refusing parent
Full size table

Discussion

As vaccine preventable diseases become less common, parents in industrialised countries appear to be expressing more concerns about the safety and necessity of vaccines. This could lead to a decline in vaccination uptake rates to a level which allows the diseases to re-emerge and become significant health problems [73].

Health professionals have to juggle the need to consider the population at risk of the disease (particularly if vaccination rates drop) alongside addressing the needs of the particular parent who is raising concerns about what to do for their particular child. These concerns centre on an increasing number of vaccines given to children, their safety, composition and necessity.

Since interactions with health professionals provide a focal point for parents’ concerns to be expressed, it is important that communication during these interactions is effective [26]. The parental positions described in this paper act as a starting point for health professionals to choose the most appropriate communication strategy. Naturally these will vary according to the parent’s individual needs and circumstances.

The literature review informing the parental positions found only three papers providing a spectrum of attitudes to vaccination. While there is a vast literature exploring attitudes to vaccination among parents [3, 7, 74, 75], we sought to identify only studies that would provide a spectrum of attitudinal positions that would theoretically account for all parents.

However, the spectrum described does simplify what is often a complex process of decision making which may involve parents moving between positions over time. Indeed, as noted in the wider literature, parents’ decisions are also made in a broader context of beliefs about a child’s health, personal experiences, perceived norms, and trust in health systems and professionals [12, 29, 76]. While the parental positions were developed from three US studies, we have applied our knowledge and experience from other countries to their modification.

The approximate proportions of each parental group are estimates from population-based surveys and will vary over time, within regions, and between practices. For example, the estimate for the percentage of parents completely refusing all vaccines is given as less than 2% based on population data but there are clusters of much higher refuser rates in specific localities [43, 44, 77]. Nevertheless, giving ranges for the sizes of the groups may assist health professionals and programme coordinators in planning for targeted information and strategies.

We have proposed an approach to communication that encourages questions and employs a guiding rather than directing style. The reality of busy clinical environments can act as a disincentive for health professionals to actively seek out questions and concerns [54]. However, the framework we propose may ensure that consultations are more time efficient because it provides a structure to more rapidly identify the parent’s position on vaccination, the most appropriate goals for that consultation, and the parent’s specific information needs. Practised interviewing techniques enable the health professional to quickly focus the discussion on the specific concerns of the parent. In interactions with vaccine-refusing parents, some health professionals attempt to change the parent’s mind [70]. As this goal is usually unrealistic, the consultation can become long and difficult and result in an impasse. Having more realistic goals will facilitate a more satisfying and time efficient discussion which may then be followed-up as needed.

Communication strategies to date have lacked clear evidence of efficacy in vaccination settings. We have described a framework for talking with parents about vaccination. It is informed by evidence and acceptable to the health professionals involved in the formative evaluation sessions, but now needs to be more fully evaluated. This may involve group or individual training of health professionals who undergo assessment using standardised patients and validated scales that measure quality of communication [78]. To measure effectiveness of the framework against the aims described above (satisfaction, self-efficacy, decision quality and vaccination uptake), a randomised controlled trial delivered at cluster (e.g., GP practice) or individual level would then establish its effectiveness compared with ‘usual care’.

Conclusion

Good communication is part of a suite of measures needed to maintain high uptake of child vaccines. Strategies must also continue to address barriers such as access to healthcare and provider factors [79–81]. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to build an evidence base which informs vaccine communication, given that the parent–provider interaction remains integral to maintaining public confidence in vaccination.

References

  1. 1.

    Andre FE, Booy R, Bock HL, Clemens J, Datta SK, John TJ: Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bull World Health Organ. 2008, 86: 140-146. 10.2471/BLT.07.040089.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Samad L, Butler N, Peckham C, Bedford H: Incomplete immunisation uptake in infancy: maternal reasons. Vaccine. 2006, 24: 6823-6829. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.06.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Falagas ME, Zarkadoulia E: Factors associated with suboptimal compliance to vaccinations in children in developed countries: a systematic review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008, 24: 1719-1741. 10.1185/03007990802085692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Smith PJ, Chu SY, Barker LE: Children who have received no vaccines: who are they and where do they live?. Pediatrics. 2004, 114: 187-195. 10.1542/peds.114.1.187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gust DA, Darling N, Kennedy A, Schwartz B: Parents with doubts about vaccines: which vaccines and reasons why. Pediatrics. 2008, 122: 718-725. 10.1542/peds.2007-0538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kennedy AM, LaVail K, Nowak G, Basket M, Landry S: Confidence about vaccines in the United States: understanding parents' perceptions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011, 30: 1-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Brown KF, Kroll JS, Hudson MJ, Ramsay M, Green J, Long SJ, Vincent CA, Fraser G, Sevdalis N: Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2010, 28: 4235-4248. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.04.052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Thomas M, Kohli V, King D: Barriers to childhood immunization: findings from a needs assessment study. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2004, 23: 19-39.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rogers R, Pilgrim A: Rational non-compliance with childhood immunisation: personal accounts of parents and primary health care professionals. 1993, London: Health Education Authority

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifer CM, Schwarz N, Cook J: Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012, 13: 106-131. 10.1177/1529100612451018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jackson C, Cheater FM, Reid I: A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions. Health Expect. 2008, 11: 232-251. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00496.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Poltorak M, Leach M, Fairhead J, Cassell J: 'MMR talk' and vaccination choices: an ethnographic study in Brighton. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 709-719. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hobson-West P: 'Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all': organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociol Health Illn. 2007, 29: 198-215. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Brownlie J, Howson A: 'Leaps of faith' and MMR: an empirical study of trust. Sociology. 2005, 39: 221-239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kempe A, Daley MF, McCauley MM, Crane LA, Suh CA, Kennedy AM, Basket MM, Stokley SK, Dong F, Babbel CI, et al: Prevalence of parental concerns about childhood vaccines: the experience of primary care physicians. Am J Prev Med. 2011, 40: 548-555. 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Betsch C, Brewer NT, Brocard P, Davies P, Gaissmaier W, Haase N, Leask J, Renkewitz F, Renner B, Reyna VF, et al: Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine. 2012, 30: 3727-3733. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sturm LA, Zimet GD, Klausmeier T: Talking with concerned parents about immunization. Zero to Three. 2010, 30: 11-18.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tenrreiro KN: Time-efficient strategies to ensure vaccine risk/benefit communication. J Pediatr Nurs. 2005, 20: 469-476. 10.1016/j.pedn.2005.06.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Talking with parents about vaccines for infants: strategies for health care professionals. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/hcp/conv-materials.htm,

  20. 20.

    Healy CM, Pickering LK: How to communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents. Pediatrics. 2011, 127 (Suppl 1): S127-S133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Halperin SA: How to manage parents unsure about immunization. Canadian Journal of CME. 2000, 12: 62-75.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Evans M, Stoddart H, Condon L, Freeman E, Grizzell M, Mullen R: Parents' perspectives on the MMR immunisation: a focus group study. Br J Gen Pract. 2001, 51: 904-910.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Leach M, Fairhead J: Vaccine anxieties: global science, child health and society. 2007, London: Earthscan

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Guillaume LR, Bath PA: The impact of health scares on parents’ information needs and preferred information sources: a case study of the MMR vaccine scare. Health Informatics J. 2004, 10: 5-22. 10.1177/1460458204040664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cooper LZ, Larson HJ, Katz SL: Protecting public trust in immunization. Pediatrics. 2008, 122: 149-153. 10.1542/peds.2008-0987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Redsell SA, Bedford H, Siriwardena AN, Collier J, Atkinson P: Health visitors’ perception of their role in the universal childhood immunisation programme and their communication strategies with parents. Primary Health Care Research & Development. 2010, 11: 51-60. 10.1017/S1463423609990284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Opel DJ, Robinson JD, Heritage J, Korfiatis C, Taylor JA, Mangione-Smith R: Characterizing providers’ immunization communication practices during health supervision visits with vaccine-hesitant parents: A pilot study. Vaccine. 2012, 30: 1269-1275. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gust DA, Brown C, Sheedy K, Hibbs B, Weaver D, Nowak G: Immunization attitudes and beliefs among parents: Beyond a dichotomous perspective. Am J Health Behav. 2005, 29: 81-92. 10.5993/AJHB.29.1.7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Benin AL, Wisler-Scher DJ, Colson E, Shapiro ED, Holmboe ES: Qualitative analysis of mothers' decision-making about vaccines for infants: the importance of trust. Pediatrics. 2006, 117: 1532-1541. 10.1542/peds.2005-1728.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Downs JS, de Bruin WB, Fischhoff B: Parents' vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine. 2008, 26: 1595-1607. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hinman AR: How should physicians and nurses deal with people who do not want immunizations?. Can J Public Health. 2000, 91: 248-251.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kassionos G: Vaccination for tomorrow: the need to improve immunisation rates. J Fam Health Care. 2010, 20: 13-16.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kimmel SR: A mother who refuses to vaccinate her child. Am Fam Physician. 2003, 67: 651-

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    McGreevey D: Risks and benefits of the single versus the triple MMR vaccine: how can health professionals reassure parents?. J R Soc Promot Health. 2005, 125: 84-86. 10.1177/146642400512500212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Lawrence GL, Hull B, MacIntyre CR, McIntyre PB: Reasons for incomplete immunisation among Australian children: a national survey of parents. Aust Fam Physician. 2004, 33: 568-571.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Freed GL, Clark SJ, Butchart AT, Singer DC, Davis MM: Parental vaccine safety concerns in 2009. Pediatrics. 2010, 125: 654-659. 10.1542/peds.2009-1962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    National Committee for Quality Assurance: The state of health care quality. 2010, National: Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Dempsey AF, Schaffer S, Singer D, Butchart A, Davis M, Freed GL: Alternative vaccination schedule preferences among parents of young children. Pediatrics. 2011, 128: 848-856. 10.1542/peds.2011-0400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Opel DJ, Taylor JA, Mangione-Smith R, Colomon C, Zhao C, Catz S, Martin D: Validity and reliability of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents. Vaccine. 2011, 29: 6598-6605. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Pearce A, Law C, Elliman D, Cole TJ, Bedford H: Millennium Cohort Study Child Health Group: Factors associated with uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) and use of single antigen vaccines in a contemporary UK cohort: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2008, 336: 754-757. 10.1136/bmj.39489.590671.25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Jessop LJ, Kelleher CC, Murrin C, Lotya J, Clarke AT, O'Mahony D, Fallon UB, Johnson H, Bury G, Murphy AW: Lifeways Cohort Study Steering Group: Determinants of partial or no primary immunisations. Arch Dis Child. 2010, 95: 603-605. 10.1136/adc.2009.161810.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Stefanoff P, Mamelund S-E, Robinson M, Netterlid E, Tuells J, Bergsaker MAR, Heijbel H, Yarwood J: Tracking parental attitudes on vaccination across European countries: the Vaccine Safety, Attitudes, Training and Communication Project (VACSATC). Vaccine. 2010, 28: 5731-5737. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hull BP, Dey A, Mahajan D, Menzies RI, McIntyre PB: Immunisation coverage annual report, 2009. Commun Dis Intell. 2011, 35: 132-148.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National and state vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months - United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011, 60: 1157-1163.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Miller J: What decision-making ‘styles’ do parents use when considering whether or not to vaccinate their child with the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR). 2008, Masters thesis, University of Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Brewer NT, Fazekas KI: Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability: a theory-informed, systematic review. Prev Med. 2007, 45: 107-114. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.05.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Thompson JW, Tyson S, Card-Higginson P, Jacobs RF, Wheeler JG, Simpson P, Bost JE, Ryan KW, Salmon DA: Impact of addition of philosophical exemptions on childhood immunization rates. Am J Prev Med. 2007, 32: 194-201. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.10.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Trevena L, Flitcroft K, Irwig L, McCaffery K, Salkeld G: Communicating about screening. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1591-10.1136/bmj.a1591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Silverman J, Kurtz S, Draper J: Skills for communicating with patients. 2005, Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kerridge I, Lowe M, Stewart C: Ethics and law for the health professions. 2009, Sydney: Federation Press, 3

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Rollnick S, Butler CC, Kinnersley P, Gregory J, Mash B: Motivational interviewing. BMJ. 2010, 340: c1900-10.1136/bmj.c1900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Leask J, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Kerridge I: Consent and public engagement in an era of expanded childhood immunisation. J Paediatr Child Health. 2011, 47: 603-607. 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02160.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Bryant KA, Wesley GC, Wood JA, Hines C, Marshall GS: Use of standardized patients to examine physicians’ communication strategies when addressing vaccine refusal: A pilot study. Vaccine. 2009, 27: 3616-3619. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.03.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Davis TC, Fredrickson DD, Arnold CL, Cross JT, Humiston SG, Green KW, Bocchini JA: Childhood vaccine risk/benefit communication in private practice office settings: a national survey. Pediatrics. 2001, 107: E17-10.1542/peds.107.2.e17.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Department of Health: Immunisation against infectious disease 2006 (The Green Book). Edited by: Salisbury D, Ramsay M, Noakes K. 2012, London, Updated 31 August 2012

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration: Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based user’s guide. Edited by: Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS. Silver Spring MD

  57. 57.

    National Health Medical Research Council: General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients. 1994, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Vannice KS, Salmon DA, Shui I, Omer SB, Kissner J, Edwards KM, Sparks R, Dekker CL, Klein NP, Gust DA: Attitudes and beliefs of parents concerned about vaccines: impact of timing of immunization information. Pediatrics. 2011, 127 (Suppl 1): S120-S126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Wallace C, Leask J, Trevena LJ: Effects of a web based decision aid on parental attitudes to MMR vaccination: a before and after study. BMJ. 2006, 332: 146-149. 10.1136/bmj.38678.681840.68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Jackson C, Cheater FM, Peacock R, Leask J, Trevena L: Evaluating a web-based MMR decision aid to support informed decision-making by UK parents: A before-and-after feasibility study. Health Educ J. 2010, 69: 74-83. 10.1177/0017896910363146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Jackson C, Shourie S, Cheater FM, Bekker H, Harrison W, Tubeuf S, Edlin R, Bleasby B, McAleese E, Hammond L, Schweiger MS: Implementing a web based decision aid for MMR (combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine) into everyday practice within primary care: an exploratory study. Society for Behavioural Medicine 6th Annual Scientific Meeting. 2010, UK: Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Trevena LJ, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P: A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006, 12: 13-23. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Lipkus IM: Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007, 27: 696-713. 10.1177/0272989X07307271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM: Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011, 155: 87-96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Trevena L, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Timmermans D, Peters E, Lipkus IM, King J, Lawson M, Galesic M, Han P, Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H, et al: Representing Probabilities. Update of the International Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's Background Document. Chapter C. 2012, http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html,

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ali H, Seale H, Ward K, Zwar N: A picture speaks a thousand words: evaluation of a pictorial post-vaccination care resource in Australia. Aust J Prim Health. 2010, 16: 246-251. 10.1071/PY10002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Lundahl B, Burke BL: The effectiveness and applicability of motivational interviewing: a practice-friendly review of four meta-analyses. J Clin Psychol. 2009, 65: 1232-1245. 10.1002/jclp.20638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    DiClemente CC, Marden Velasquez M: Motivational interviewing and the stages of change. Motivational Interviewing. Edited by: Miller WR, Rollnick S. 2002, New York: The Guilford Press, 201-216. 2

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Jackson C, Cheater FM: What is the most effective way to support informed parental decision-making for the MMR vaccine. 2007, Report submitted to the Department of Health (Public Health Initiative Award)

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Leask J: How do general practitioners persuade parents to vaccinate their children? A study using standardised scenarios. N S W Public Health Bull. 2009, 20: 119-124. 10.1071/NB08064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Rollnick S, Miller WR, Butler CB: Motivational interviewing in health care. 2008, New York: The Guildford Press

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Wood N: Immunisation adverse events clinics. N S W Public Health Bull. 2003, 14: 25-27. 10.1071/NB03007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Leask J: Target the fence-sitters. Nature. 2011, 473: 443-445.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Mills E, Jadad AR, Ross C, Wilson K: Systematic review of qualitative studies exploring parental beliefs and attitudes toward childhood vaccination identifies common barriers to vaccination. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 1081-1088. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Tickner S, Leman PJ, Woodcock A: Factors underlying suboptimal childhood immunisation. Vaccine. 2006, 24: 7030-7036. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.06.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Giddens A: The consequences of modernity. 1990, Stanford: Stanford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Samad L, Tate AR, Dezateux C, Peckham C, Butler N, Bedford H: Differences in risk factors for partial and no immunisation in the first year of life: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006, 332: 1312-1313. 10.1136/bmj.332.7553.1312.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Howells RJ, Davies HA, Silverman JD, Archer JC, Mellon AF: Assessment of doctors' consultation skills in the paediatric setting: the Paediatric Consultation Assessment Tool. Arch Dis Child. 2010, 95: 323-329. 10.1136/adc.2008.146191.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Shefer A, Briss P, Rodewald L, Bernier R, Strikas R, Yusuf H, Ndiaye S, Wiliams S, Pappaioanou M, Hinman AR: Improving immunization coverage rates: an evidence-based review of the literature. Epidemiol Rev. 1999, 21: 96-142. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a017992.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE public health guidance 21: reducing differences in the uptake of immunisations (including targeted vaccines) among children and young people aged under 19 years. 2009, London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Ward K, Chow MYK, King C, Leask J: Strategies to improve vaccination uptake in Australia, a systematic review of types and effectiveness. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012, 36: 369-377. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00897.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Pre-publication history

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/12/154/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Helen Moore, Michelle A’Deggers and Kate Russo from the Australian General Practice Network and staff at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance for providing feedback on the framework. We also thank Lynne Sturm and Nick Sevdalis for their constructive suggestions as peer reviewers. NCIRS is supported by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, the NSW Department of Health and The Children’s Hospital at Westmead. This research was carried out independent of its funding sources.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, and Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health University of Sydney and National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia

    Julie Leask

  2. Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, 3rd floor, Neuadd Meirionydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK

    Paul Kinnersley

  3. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

    Cath Jackson

  4. Institute for Applied Health Research, Associate Dean (Research) School of Health and Life Sciences, Buchanan House, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 OBA, UK

    Francine Cheater

  5. Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK

    Helen Bedford

  6. Greg Rowles, General practitioner, 9 Station St, Riddells Creek, VIC, 3431, Australia

    Greg Rowles

Authors
  1. Julie Leask
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Kinnersley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cath Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francine Cheater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Helen Bedford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Greg Rowles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Leask.

Additional information

Competing interests

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Authors’ contributions

JL and PK had the idea for the article, CJ and FC performed the literature search, JL, PK, CJ, FC, HB and GR developed the framework and wrote the article. JL is the guarantor. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leask, J., Kinnersley, P., Jackson, C. et al. Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatr 12, 154 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-12-154

Download citation

Keywords

  • Health Professional
  • Parental Position
  • Childhood Vaccination
  • Vaccination Uptake
  • Primary Health Care Professional

BMC Pediatrics

ISSN: 1471-2431

Contact us