ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Improving Conversations With COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitant Patients: Action Research to Support Family Physicians.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building better conversations: results of a community-based online health misinformation and motivational interviewing training program in Alaska.BMC public health · 2026Article
- "I think of it as planting seeds": challenging patient-provider discussions about COVID-19 vaccination: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Exploring vaccination attitudes in African communities in Canada: A mixed-methods study protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Resources available for parent-provider vaccine communication in pregnancy in Canada: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Counteracting Vaccine Misinformation: An Active Learning Module.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Thinking and Enacting the Patient Medical Home Under Pandemic Conditions: A Qualitative Study From Primary Care in Alberta, Canada.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination delivery and efforts to counter vaccine hesitancy have become focal issues for family medicine teams as the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved. Conducting action research, our team developed an interactive web-based guide to improve clinical conversations around a broad range of vaccine hesitancies presented by patients. The paper presents a step-by-step account of the guide being codesigned with family physicians-its targeted end users-in a process that included validation interviews; role-play interviews; and user-tested design. The validation interviews sought to understand the pragmatic realities of vaccine hesitancy in family medicine clinical practice relative to relevant psychological theories. The role-play interviews drew out conversational strategies and advice from family physicians. The principles of motivational interviewing-an evidence-based approach to vaccine hesitancy conversations that supplements information deficit approaches-were used to codesign the content and layout of the guide. User counts, stakeholder engagement, and web-based analytics indicate the guide is being used extensively. Formal evaluation of the guide is presently underway.Originally published as
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.