Jarrett Caitlin, Wilson Rose, O'Leary Maureen, Eckersberger Elisabeth, Larson Heidi J
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4180-90. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040. Epub 2015 Apr 18.
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.
Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
本系统评价的目的是识别、描述和评估在全球不同背景下实施和评估的应对疫苗犹豫问题策略的潜在有效性。
采用广泛的检索策略,对同行评审文献(2007年1月至2013年10月)和灰色文献(截至2013年10月)进行系统评价,该检索策略旨在捕捉公众对疫苗的信任、信心和犹豫的多个维度。该检索策略应用于多个数据库和组织网站,并进行了调整。对166项(同行评审)和15项(灰色文献)评价研究进行了描述性分析。此外,使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)标准评估了与疫苗犹豫问题SAGE工作组(WG)定义的一系列PICO(人群、干预措施、对照/控制、结局)问题相关的证据质量;使用Review Manager对数据进行分析。
在整个文献中,很少有应对疫苗犹豫的策略被评估对疫苗接种率和/或知识、意识或态度变化的影响(同行评审文献中仅14%,灰色文献中25%)。大多数评价研究基于美洲,主要集中在流感、人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)和儿童疫苗。在低收入和中等收入地区,重点是白喉、破伤风和百日咳以及脊髓灰质炎。在所有地区,大多数干预措施是多成分的,大多数策略侧重于提高知识和意识。13项相关研究用于GRADE评估,结果表明社会动员、大众媒体、针对医护人员的基于沟通工具的培训、非财务激励措施以及基于提醒/召回的干预措施的使用证据质量中等。总体而言,我们的结果表明多成分和基于对话的干预措施最有效。然而,鉴于疫苗犹豫的复杂性以及关于如何应对这一问题的现有证据有限,应根据目标人群、他们犹豫的原因以及具体背景仔细调整所确定的策略。