Post-pandemic questions in vaccination counseling: Two qualitative analyses of open-ended responses comparing hypothetical and novel vaccines

IF 4.5 3区医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY

Vaccine Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127823

Parichehr Shamsrizi , Sarah Eitze , Dorothee Heinemeier , Anne-Sophie Tänzer , Mirjam Annina Jenny

{"title":"Post-pandemic questions in vaccination counseling: Two qualitative analyses of open-ended responses comparing hypothetical and novel vaccines","authors":"Parichehr Shamsrizi , Sarah Eitze , Dorothee Heinemeier , Anne-Sophie Tänzer , Mirjam Annina Jenny","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>In Study 1, <em>n</em> = 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 <em>n</em> = 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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Healthcare providers should adapt communication strategies, focusing on shared decision-making and personalized vaccination decisions including novel and well-known determinants of vaccination decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"66 ","pages":"Article 127823"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2501120X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

疫苗接种咨询中的大流行后问题：比较假设疫苗和新型疫苗的开放式回答的两个定性分析。

背景：我们研究了患者对新型疫苗接种决策的信息需求，重点关注他们在经历了大流行之后希望在医患沟通中获得什么样的信息。方法：在研究1中，n = 842名德国参与者接受了一种虚构疾病和疫苗接种（称为运动障碍）的信息，包括症状、疾病影响、疫苗功效和潜在副作用。他们被问及在会诊时会问医生哪些问题。在研究2中，我们纳入了n = 1127名60岁以上的人。参与者获得了有关新型呼吸道合胞病毒（RSV）疫苗的信息，然后，他们被问及与研究1中相同的开放式问题。结果：研究1中归纳开发的分类系统在两项研究中都被证明是有效的编码反应。与会者经常提出对疫苗安全性、副作用和禁忌症的担忧，特别是在已有疾病的情况下。问题还集中在疗效、加强时间、免疫计划、疫苗类型和疾病发病率上。对医生的信任很重要，参与者希望明确医疗建议和官方指导方针。结论：卫生保健提供者应调整沟通策略，重点关注共享决策和个性化的疫苗接种决策，包括疫苗接种决策的新颖和众所周知的决定因素。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Vaccine 医学-免疫学

CiteScore

8.70

自引率

5.50%

发文量

992

审稿时长

131 days

期刊介绍： Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.