An exploratory qualitative assessment of factors influencing childhood vaccine providers' intention to recommend immunization in the Netherlands

BMC Public Health

Research Article

Jim E van Steenbergen¹  Liesbeth Mollema¹  Hester E de Melker¹  Jojet M Staal²  Theo GWM Paulussen³ 

[1] Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands;Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands;Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, The Netherlands;

关键词: Focus Group;    Focus Group Discussion;    National Immunization Program;    High Disease Burden;    Vaccine Acceptance;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-128

 received in 2011-02-04, accepted in 2012-02-14,  发布年份 2012

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundUnder the Dutch national immunization program (NIP), childhood vaccination is not mandatory, but its recommendation by childhood vaccine providers (CVP) is important for maintaining high vaccination coverage. We therefore examined factors related to providers' intentions to recommend vaccinations to parents of young children.MethodsWe conducted four focus group discussions with nurses and physicians who provide vaccines to children 0-4 years old in diverse regions of the Netherlands. Three groups represented CVPs at child welfare centers (CWCs) serving the general population, with the fourth representing anthroposophical CWCs. Elements of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) were used to design the groups; thematic analysis was used to structure and analyze the dataset.ResultsFour main themes emerged, including 1) perceived responsibility: to promote vaccines and discuss pros and cons with parents (although this was usually not done if parents readily accepted the vaccination); 2) attitudes toward the NIP: mainly positive, but doubts as to NIP plans to vaccinate against diseases with a low perceived burden; 3) organizational factors: limited time and information can hamper discussions with parents; 4) relationship with parents: crucial and based mainly on communication to establish trust. Compared to CVPs at standard CWCs, the anthroposophical CWCs spent more time communicating and were more willing to adapt the NIP to individual cases.ConclusionsOur qualitative assessment provides an overview of beliefs associated with providers' intention to recommend vaccinations. They were motivated to support the NIP, but their intentions to recommend vaccinations were affected by the perceived relevance of the vaccines, practical issues like limited time and by certain types of resistant parents. These results will inform future studies to test the magnitude and relative impact of these factors.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Mollema et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012