ArticleBMC health services research2026
Exploring patients' perceptions of their vaccine conversations with care providers: a staged approach to developing a patient evaluation survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFactors influencing individuals, their beliefs about vaccines and vaccination, hesitancy, trust, and complacency have been well studied. Patient-centred healthcare provider education or preparation for talking about vaccines has not received much attention. To close this gap, a team of clinicians, other care providers and patient/family advisors in Calgary, Alberta developed an online virtual simulation game toolkit to prepare healthcare providers to be more knowledgeable and comfortable having vaccine conversations with patients. The effectiveness of these vaccine conversations also needed to be measured. This paper describes the co-design of a survey for patients to evaluate these vaccine conversations in clinical practice.
methodsA staged approach was used to develop the patient evaluation survey. A rapid literature review was conducted (Stage 1) to determine what, if any measures may be useful to begin discussions. A Survey Development Working group of patients, family members and healthcare providers co-designed the survey (Stage 2). In Stage 3, the survey was pilot tested online by patients and discussed in ‘think aloud’ sessions with three different patient groups and one with diverse healthcare providers. Survey responses were only used as context for the discussions. Descriptive qualitative analysis was applied to the discussion transcripts.
resultsThe 13 patients who completed the online survey were diverse by age, gender, income, and types of vaccine conversations they experienced. All survey questions were responded to without difficulty. Generally, the nine patients and seven healthcare providers who participated in the ‘think aloud’ discussion groups indicated strong support for the survey to effectively evaluate the one or more vaccine conversations which patients would have with various healthcare providers. Both groups felt that patient responses would be useful to inform healthcare providers. Minor changes were suggested but overall survey format, length and questions were felt to be good.
conclusionThe co-designed patient evaluation survey accompanying the online care provider toolkit will be of value in guiding healthcare providers to improve their vaccine conversations. The survey requires broader implementation with different patient groups. Additional studies are needed to measure patients’ perspectives regarding the vaccine conversations they have with their care providers.
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.