Cargando…
Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol
INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccin...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924801/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31831547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033245 |
_version_ | 1783481792377913344 |
---|---|
author | Oduwole, Elizabeth O Pienaar, Elizabeth D Mahomed, Hassan Wiysonge, Charles Shey |
author_facet | Oduwole, Elizabeth O Pienaar, Elizabeth D Mahomed, Hassan Wiysonge, Charles Shey |
author_sort | Oduwole, Elizabeth O |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccine hesitancy into their immunisation programmes. This requires that governments and health institutions be able to detect concerns about vaccination in the population and monitor changes in vaccination behaviours. To do this effectively, tools to detect and measure vaccine hesitancy are required. The purpose of this scoping review is to give a broad overview of currently available vaccine hesitancy measuring tools and present a summary of their nature, similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted using the framework for scoping review proffered by Arksey and O’Malley. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews’ guidelines. The broader research question of this review is: what vaccine hesitancy measuring tools are currently available? Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and selected keywords. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two authors and data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors using a pretested data charting form. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. Narrative analysis will be used to summarise the findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. It will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/x8fjk/ |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6924801 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69248012020-01-02 Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol Oduwole, Elizabeth O Pienaar, Elizabeth D Mahomed, Hassan Wiysonge, Charles Shey BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccine hesitancy into their immunisation programmes. This requires that governments and health institutions be able to detect concerns about vaccination in the population and monitor changes in vaccination behaviours. To do this effectively, tools to detect and measure vaccine hesitancy are required. The purpose of this scoping review is to give a broad overview of currently available vaccine hesitancy measuring tools and present a summary of their nature, similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted using the framework for scoping review proffered by Arksey and O’Malley. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews’ guidelines. The broader research question of this review is: what vaccine hesitancy measuring tools are currently available? Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and selected keywords. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two authors and data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors using a pretested data charting form. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. Narrative analysis will be used to summarise the findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. It will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/x8fjk/ BMJ Publishing Group 2019-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6924801/ /pubmed/31831547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033245 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Public Health Oduwole, Elizabeth O Pienaar, Elizabeth D Mahomed, Hassan Wiysonge, Charles Shey Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
title | Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
title_full | Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
title_fullStr | Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
title_short | Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
title_sort | current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924801/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31831547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033245 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oduwoleelizabetho currenttoolsavailableforinvestigatingvaccinehesitancyascopingreviewprotocol AT pienaarelizabethd currenttoolsavailableforinvestigatingvaccinehesitancyascopingreviewprotocol AT mahomedhassan currenttoolsavailableforinvestigatingvaccinehesitancyascopingreviewprotocol AT wiysongecharlesshey currenttoolsavailableforinvestigatingvaccinehesitancyascopingreviewprotocol |