ArticleBMC medical education2025
Preferences of community health workers for vaccine communication training programs in harbin, china: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGood communication skills among community health workers (CHWs) can improve public vaccination decision-making and alleviate vaccine hesitancy. However, in China, standardized training to improve the vaccine communication skills of CHWs is insufficient and underemphasized. Accordingly, this study examined the training preferences for CHWs' vaccine communication skills to meet the current needs of community-based vaccination services in China.
methodsThis study employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) design conducted at five community health service centers in Harbin, China, between April and June 2021. Data collection included in-depth interviews and face-to-face administration of questionnaires. CHWs were recruited via convenience sampling, with eligibility criteria requiring participants to: hold vaccination qualification certificates; be full-time frontline staff with ≥ 1 year of vaccination experience; have no prior formal training in vaccine communication. A total of 164 valid questionnaires were included for analysis. Preferences for training programs were evaluated using a mixed logit model. The DCE attributes comprised training period (1 day, 3 days, 7 days), main content (vaccine basics, addressing common misconceptions, communication skills), delivery methods (online lectures, on-site seminars, case simulations), training scale (< 50, 50-100, > 100 participants), and feedback mechanisms (none, final feedback, stage-based feedback).
resultsThree attributes-training period, main content of the training, and training scale-significantly influenced CHWs' training choices. CHWs preferred programs with shorter training cycles and fewer than 50 participants to improve their ability to share basic vaccine-related knowledge and had less desire to receive communication skills training. At the same time, we found no association of training modality on CHW preferences.
conclusionsUsing a DCE, this study investigated the preferences of CHWs for participating in a vaccine communication training program. CHWs preferred a one-day training cycle, training content focusing on vaccine basics, and a small number of people to be trained. The results of this study can inform policymakers and administrators when in China developing vaccine communication training programs for CHWs.
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.