Vaccine · 2025
Post-pandemic questions in vaccination counseling: Two qualitative analyses of open-ended responses comparing hypothetical and novel vaccines.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shamsrizi Parichehr, Eitze Sarah, Heinemeier Dorothee, Tänzer Anne-Sophie, Jenny Mirjam Annina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We examine patients' informational needs regarding novel vaccination decisions, focusing on what information they expect to receive in doctor-patient communication after having lived through a pandemic.
METHOD: In Study 1, n = 842 German participants received information on a fictional disease and vaccination (called dysomeria), including symptoms, disease impact, vaccine efficacy, and potential side effects. They were asked what questions they would ask their doctor in a consultation. In Study 2, we included n = 1127 people over the age of 60. The participants received information about the novel Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine and then, they were asked the same open-ended question as in Study 1.
RESULTS: An inductively developed categorization system from Study 1 proved effective for coding responses in both studies. Participants frequently raised concerns about vaccine safety, side effects, and contraindications-especially in the context of preexisting medical conditions. Questions also focused on efficacy, booster timing, immunization schedules, vaccine types, and disease incidence. Trust in physicians was important, with participants seeking clarity on both medical recommendations and official guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers should adapt communication strategies, focusing on shared decision-making and personalized vaccination decisions including novel and well-known determinants of vaccination decisions.
METHOD: In Study 1, n = 842 German participants received information on a fictional disease and vaccination (called dysomeria), including symptoms, disease impact, vaccine efficacy, and potential side effects. They were asked what questions they would ask their doctor in a consultation. In Study 2, we included n = 1127 people over the age of 60. The participants received information about the novel Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine and then, they were asked the same open-ended question as in Study 1.
RESULTS: An inductively developed categorization system from Study 1 proved effective for coding responses in both studies. Participants frequently raised concerns about vaccine safety, side effects, and contraindications-especially in the context of preexisting medical conditions. Questions also focused on efficacy, booster timing, immunization schedules, vaccine types, and disease incidence. Trust in physicians was important, with participants seeking clarity on both medical recommendations and official guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers should adapt communication strategies, focusing on shared decision-making and personalized vaccination decisions including novel and well-known determinants of vaccination decisions.