Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34521378›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Beyond the "information deficit model" - understanding vaccine-hesitant attitudes of midwives in Austria: a qualitative study.

Lisa Lehner, Janna Gribi, Kathryn Hoffmann, Katharina T Paul, Ruth Kutalek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Trust matters: The Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe Study.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Vaccination in pregnancy: The role of the midwife.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa LehnerDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. ll723@cornell.edu.
Janna GribiDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Kathryn HoffmannDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Katharina T PaulDepartment of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ruth KutalekDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF V 561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers are considered key stakeholders in efforts to address vaccine hesitancy. Midwives' influence in advising expectant parents on early-childhood vaccinations is unquestioned, yet they remain an understudied group. The literature on midwives' attitudes towards vaccinations is also inconclusive. We therefore conducted an explorative qualitative study on midwives' vaccine-hesitant attitudes towards MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccinations in Austria.

methodsWe conducted 12 in-depth interviews on their knowledge, concerns, and beliefs with midwives who self-identified as hesitant or resistant towards early-childhood MMR vaccinations. We analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach to distill common themes and meanings.

resultsHealthcare workers' stewardship to address vaccine hesitancy is commonly framed in terms of the "information deficit model": disseminate the right information and remedy publics' information deficits. Our findings suggest that this approach is too simplistic: Midwives' professional self-understanding, their notions of "good care" and "good parenthood" inflect how they engage with vaccine information and how they address it to their clients. Midwives' model of care prioritized good counseling rather than sharing scientific information in a "right the wrong"-manner. They saw themselves as critical consumers of that information and as promoting "empowered patients" who were free, and affluent enough, to make their own choices about vaccinations. In so doing, they also often promoted traditional notions of motherhood.

conclusionsResearch shows that, for parents, vaccine decision-making builds on trust and dialogue with healthcare professionals and is more than a technical issue. In order to foster these interactions, understanding healthcare professionals' means of engaging with information is key to understanding how they engage with their constituents. Healthcare workers are more than neutral resources; their daily praxis influenced by their professional standing in the healthcare system. Similarly, healthcare professionals' views on vaccinations cannot be remedied with more information either. Building better and more diverse curricula for different groups of healthcare workers must attend to their respective roles, ethics of care, and professional beliefs. Taken together, better models for addressing vaccine hesitancy can only be developed by espousing a multi-faceted view of decision-making processes and interactions of healthcare workers with constituents.

Indexed as

MidwiferyVaccinesAustriaFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchVaccinationVaccinesVaccine hesitancy - MMR vaccinations - midwives - midwife training - health communication

Identifiers

PMID34521378
PMCPMC8442326
OpenAlexW3199444128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.