Characterizing research partnerships in child health research: A scoping review.

Research partnerships between researchers and knowledge users (KUs) in child health are understudied. This study examined the scope of KU engagement reported in published child health research, inclusive of health research partnership approaches and KU groups. Search strategies were developed by a health research librarian. Studies had to be in English, published since 2007, and were not excluded based on design. A two-step, multiple-person hybrid screening approach was used for study inclusion. Data on study and engagement characteristics, barriers and facilitators, and effects were extracted by one reviewer, with 10% verified by a second reviewer. Three hundred fifteen articles were included, with 243 (77.1%) published between 2019 and 2021. Community-based participatory research was the most common approach used (n = 122, 38.3%). Most studies (n = 235, 74.6%) engaged multiple KU groups (range 1-11), with children/youth, healthcare professionals, and parents/families being most frequently engaged. Reporting of barriers and facilitators and effects were variable, reported in 170 (53.8%) and 197 (62.5%) studies, respectively. Publications have increased exponentially over time. There is ongoing need to optimize evaluation and reporting consistency to facilitate growth in the field. Additional studies are needed to further our understanding of research partnerships in child health.

Intersecting Inequities in COVID-19 Vaccination: A Discourse Analysis of Information Use and Decision-Making Among Ethnically Diverse Parents in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how intersecting social privilege and disadvantage contribute to inequities in COVID-19 information use and vaccine access. This study explored how social inequities intersect to shape access to and use of COVID-19 information and vaccines among parents in Canada. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews on COVID-19 vaccination information use with ethnically diverse parents of children ages 11 to 18 years from April to August 2022. We purposefully invited parents from respondents to a national online survey to ensure representation across diverse intersecting social identities. Five researchers coded transcripts in NVivo using a discourse analysis approach informed by intersectionality. Our analysis focused on use of vaccine information and intersecting privileges and oppressions, including identifying with equity-denied group(s). RESULTS: Interview participants (N = 48) identified as ethnically diverse non-Indigenous (n = 40) and Indigenous (n = 8) Peoples from seven Canadian provinces. Racialized minority or Indigenous participants reflected on historical and contemporary events of racism from government and medical institutions as barriers to trust and access to COVID-19 information, vaccines, and the Canadian healthcare system. Participants with privileged social locations showed greater comfort in resisting public health measures. Despite the urgency to receive COVID-19 vaccines, information gaps and transportation barriers delayed vaccination among some participants living with chronic medical conditions. CONCLUSION: Historicization of colonialism and ongoing events of racism are a major barrier to trusting public health information. Fostering partnerships with trusted leaders and/or healthcare workers from racialized communities may help rebuild trust. Healthcare systems need to continuously implement strategies to restore trust with Indigenous and racialized populations.

Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health. OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively. RESULTS: Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature. CONCLUSIONS: Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.

"There's a little bit of mistrust": Red River Métis experiences of the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics.

We examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID-19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine-safety test subjects before population-wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non-prioritization of the Métis during COVID-19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign-though understandable-interpretations.

We're here too: child health information-seeking experiences and preferences of Red River Métis families - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Red River Métis families need access to meaningful and appropriate resources when their children are sick. At the invitation of the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) to partner in this research, our aim was to understand Red River Métis parents' experiences and preferences for seeking child health information when their child is acutely ill, to inform the adaptation of existing parent resources. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach underpinned by a participatory paradigm guided this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 Red River Métis parents and Elders via Zoom or telephone. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to explore patterns and themes across the data. RESULTS: Analysis generated four themes: (1) We're here too; (2) We are not all the same; (3) Finding trustworthy information; and (4) Information needs to be widely available. Red River Métis pride was prominent in the results. Parents provided tangible ways to modify existing parent resources, including adding information on how to access Elders, healers and/or traditional medicines and showing different family structures, transport, living situations, Métis names, and incorporating Métis languages. While most parents reported looking for child health information online, they also stressed the need to provide multiple options, including information sheets, recognizing that parents seek information in different contexts. Parents also emphasized the importance of accessible, safe spaces to find child health information, including local schools, community centres, healthcare organizations and the MMF. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of child health information created specifically for Red River Métis families. The development of this information can support their information needs and preferences and the ongoing efforts to revitalize Red River Métis culture and language. Study findings will inform the adaptation and dissemination of existing child health resources to ensure they reflect Red River Métis parents' information needs and preferences. This research is a critical step in addressing an identified need for Red River Métis families to have culturally relevant and meaningful child health resources, and in the pursuit of equitable care for all children in Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Racial disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in Canada: results from the cross-sectional Canadian Community Health Survey.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage have been observed in Canada and in other countries. We aimed to compare vaccination coverage for at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine between First Nations people living off reserve and Métis, Black, Arab, Chinese, South Asian and White people. METHODS: We used data collected between June 2021 and June 2022 by Statistics Canada's Canadian Community Health Survey, a large, nationally representative cross-sectional study. The analysis included 64 722 participants aged 18 years or older from the 10 provinces. We used a multiple logistic regression model to determine associations between vaccination status and race, controlling for collection period, region of residence, age, gender and education. RESULTS: Nonvaccination against COVID-19 was more frequent in off-reserve First Nations people (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.7) and Black people (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.6), and less frequent among South Asian people (adjusted OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7) compared to White people. INTERPRETATION: This analysis showed significant inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake between racial/ethnic populations in Canada. Further research is needed to understand the sociocultural, structural and systemic facilitators of and barriers to vaccination across racial groups, and to identify strategies that may improve vaccination uptake among First Nations and Black people.

'Stay home and stay safe but maybe you can have somebody over': public perceptions of official COVID-19 messages during the 2020 holiday season in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered extreme preventive measures, including economic and social lockdowns. Many experts and commentators, however, have argued in favor of a harm reduction approach, giving individuals the liberty to assess their risk and potentially engage in risky behavior more safely. Drawing on concepts from harm reduction literature we examine how Canadians interpreted messages intended to mitigate harm during the 2020 end-of-year holiday season. METHODS: We conducted 12 focus groups in four Canadian cities to discuss public health guidance to reduce the spread of COVID-19, how these messages influenced their holiday celebration plans, and how they interpreted harm mitigation messages. RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 82) described COVID-19 public health guidance as confusing and difficult to follow. Participants considered that messages intended to mitigate harm from official sources would contribute to deepening confusion and uncertainty, allow for personal interpretation of guidelines, and discourage those who follow guidelines diligently. CONCLUSION: Official public health messaging intended to mitigate harm in rapidly evolving crisis situations can be ineffective in reducing risky behaviors because it may instead encourage people to not abide the recommended guidelines. In these situations, harm reduction messaging should be limited to specific groups who cannot otherwise avoid risk exposure.

Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Involving research users in collaborative research approaches may increase the relevance and utility of research findings. Our primary objectives were to (i) identify and describe characteristics of Canadian federally and provincially funded health research projects that included research users and were funded between 2011 and 2019; (ii) explore changes over time; and (iii) compare characteristics between funder required and optional partnerships. METHODS: Retrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were projects that included research users. We analyzed publicly available project variables, and coded field and type of research using established classification systems. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and compared variables across three funding year blocks and partnership requirement status. RESULTS: We identified 1153 partnered health research projects, representing 137 fields of research and 37 types of research categories. Most projects included a required partnership (80%) and fell into health and social care services research (66%). Project length and funding amount increased from average of 24.8 months and $266 248 CAD in 2011-2013 to 31.6 months and $438 766 CAD in 2017-2019. There were significantly fewer required partnerships in 2017-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2011 and 2019 Canadian federally and provincially funded partnered health research reflected primarily care services research across many fields. The observed breadth suggests that partnered health research approaches are applicable in many fields of research. Additional work to support partnered research across all types of health research (especially biomedical research) is warranted. The administration of larger grants that are funded for longer time periods may address previously identified concerns among research teams engaging in partnered research but may mean that fewer teams receive funding and risk delaying responding to time-sensitive data needs for users. Our process and findings can be used as a starting point for international comparison.

Exploring parents' views of the use of narratives to promote childhood vaccination online.

BACKGROUND: Negative information about vaccines that spreads online may contribute to parents' vaccine hesitancy or refusal. Studies have shown that false claims about vaccines that use emotive personal narratives are more likely to be shared and engaged with on social media than factual evidence-based public health messages. The aim of this study was to explore parents' views regarding the use of positive narratives to promote childhood vaccination. METHODS: We identified three ∼4-minute video narratives from social media that counter frequent parental concerns about childhood vaccination: parents and informed decision-making (online misinformation about vaccines); a paediatrician's clinical experience with vaccine-preventable diseases (prevention of still existing diseases); and a mother's experience with vaccine-preventable disease (risks of the disease). Focus group discussions were held with parents of children aged 0 to 5 years to assess their views on these three narratives and their general opinion on the use of narratives as a vaccine promotion intervention. RESULTS: Four focus groups discussions were virtually held with 15 parents in December 2021. In general, parents trusted both health care provider's and parent's narratives, but participants identified more with stories having a parent as the main character. Both narratives featuring personal stories with vaccine-preventable diseases were preferred by parents, while the story about informed decision-making was perceived as less influential. Parents expressed the need for reliable and nuanced information about vaccines and diseases and felt that a short video format featuring a story was an efficient vaccine promotion intervention. However, many mentioned that they generally are not watching such videos while navigating the Web. CONCLUSION: While vaccine-critical stories are widely shared online, evidence on how best public health could counter these messages remains scarce. The use of narratives to promote vaccination was well-perceived by parents. Future studies are needed to assess reach and impact of such an intervention.

Risk communication and perceptions about lead ammunition and Inuit health in Nunavik, Canada.

Lead ammunition is commonly used to hunt waterfowl and other wildlife in the Arctic. Hunting with lead is problematic because the toxicant can be transferred to the consumer. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate perceptions and awareness of the risks associated with using lead ammunition among Arctic populations. Results of the Nunavik Child Development Study (a longitudinal health study gathering information on health and well-being among Inuit in Nunavik, Canada) included advice to eliminate the use of lead ammunition in hunting practices. We surveyed 112 Nunavik residents (93 women; 18 men) about their awareness of lead related messages, use of lead ammunition and risk perceptions about contaminants. Sixty-seven participants (59.8%) reported there was an active hunter in their household. We found that only 27% of participants had heard or seen the messages about reducing lead ammunition. After participants viewed the Nunavik Child Development Study messages about lead, 44% stated they would stop using lead ammunition. However, 28% indicated that they would continue using lead ammunition. We conclude that, while messages had an overall positive effect, further study is required to understand why people continue to use lead ammunition.

"I Want People to Be Able to Make an Informed Choice": How Quebec naturopaths discuss vaccination in their practice.

Health care providers' recommendations can play an important role in individuals' vaccination decisions. Despite being one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), naturopathy is understudied in relation to vaccination decisions. We sought to address this gap through this study of vaccination perspectives of naturopathy practitioners in the province of Quebec, Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 naturopaths. Thematic analysis was conducted. Main themes were developed deductively (i.e., based on prior literature) and expanded through inductive coding of the data. Participants noted that they discuss vaccination in their practice, but only when clients asked questions or wanted advice. Naturopaths described refraining from explicitly recommending for or against vaccination. Instead, they focus on empowering their clients to make their own informed decision regarding vaccination. Most participants noted that they direct clients towards sources of information so that clients could decide for themselves, but some mentioned they discussed with clients what they considered to be risks associated with vaccination, as well as its benefits. These discussions were framed through a personalized and individual approach with clients.

Strategies used in managing conversations about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among family physicians (FPs): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Screening for prostate cancer in healthy asymptomatic men using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is controversial due to conflicting recommendations from and a lack of strong evidence regarding the benefit of population-based screening. In Canada and internationally, there is variability in how family physicians (FPs) approach PSA testing in asymptomatic men. The purpose of our study was to explore how family FPs approach discussions with their male patients around PSA testing in Manitoba, Canada. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: High-ordering and median-ordering FPs were invited to participate in an interview. In addition to exploring practice behaviours around PSA testing, participants were asked to elaborate on their typical discussion with asymptomatic men who request a PSA test or other tests and procedures that they do not feel are clinically warranted. Data were analysed inductively using a constant-comparison approach. RESULTS: There were important variations between high-ordering and median-ordering FP's approaches to discussing PSA testing. Strategies to facilitate conversations were more frequently identified by median-ordering physicians and often included methods to facilitate assessing their patient's understanding and values. In addition to decision aids, median-ordering FPs used motivational interviewing to tailor a discussion, organised their practice structure and workflow habits in a way that enhanced patient-provider discussions and leveraged 'new' evidence and other aids to guide conversations with men. CONCLUSION: We found that high-ordering FPs tended to use the PSA test for screening asymptomatic men with limited shared decision-making. Median-ordering FPs used conversational strategies that emphasised uncertainty of benefit and potential risk and did not present the test as a recommendation.

Examining the experiences of Indigenous families seeking health information about caring for sick or injured children: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Mapping literature on Indigenous families' experiences seeking child health information and identifying barriers and facilitators to information access. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL for peer-reviewed literature and Google Advanced for grey literature. We screened tables of contents of two Indigenous research journals not consistently indexed in online health databases and used snowball sampling to supplement searches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included full-text, English-language articles, published from 2000 to the time of the search in April 2021, based on: participants (Indigenous families), concept (experiences of families seeking health information) and context (child health). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted: citation details, study purpose, country of study, publication type, study design, data collection method, Indigenous group, family member participants, home/healthcare setting, child health area, how health information was accessed, and information-seeking barriers and facilitators. Data were examined for patterns and trends, results and implications. RESULTS: Among 19 papers (representing 16 research projects) included, nine described family/friends and 19 described healthcare professionals as sources of child health information. Barriers include racism/discrimination during healthcare visits, ineffective communication with healthcare providers and structural barriers (eg, transportation). Facilitators include easy access, improved communication and relationships with healthcare providers, and culturally safe healthcare. CONCLUSION: Indigenous families perceive they do not have access to necessary child health information, which can lead to insensitive, ineffective and unsafe healthcare. A critical gap exists in understanding Indigenous families' information needs and preferences when making decisions about children's health.

When good messages go wrong: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine communication from generally vaccine accepting individuals in Canada.

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses.

Recognition of knowledge translation practice in Canadian health sciences tenure and promotion: A content analysis of institutional policy documents.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There has been growing emphasis on increasing impacts of academic health research by integrating research findings in healthcare. The concept of knowledge translation (KT) has been widely adopted in Canada to guide this work, although lack of recognition in tenure and promotion (T&P) structures have been identified as barrier to researchers undertaking KT. Our objective was to explore how KT is considered in institutional T&P documentation in Canadian academic health sciences. METHODS: We conducted content analysis of T&P documents acquired from 19 purposively sampled research-intensive or largest regional Canadian institutions in 2020-2021. We coded text for four components of KT (synthesis, dissemination, exchange, application). We identified clusters of related groups of documents interpreted together within the same institution. We summarized manifest KT content with descriptive statistics and identified latent categories related to how KT is considered in T&P documentation. RESULTS: We acquired 89 unique documents from 17 institutions that formed 48 document clusters. Most of the 1057 text segments were categorized as dissemination (n = 851, 81%), which was included in 47 document clusters (98%). 15 document clusters (31%) included all four KT categories, while one (2%) did not have any KT categories identified. We identified two latent categories: primarily implicit recognition of KT; and an overall lack of clarity on KT. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of T&P documents from primarily research-intensive Canadian universities showed a lack of formal recognition for a comprehensive approach to KT and emphasis on traditional dissemination. We recommend that institutions explicitly and comprehensively consider KT in T&P and align documentation and procedures to reflect these values.

A qualitative investigation of facilitators and barriers to accessing COVID-19 vaccines among Racialized and Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

Structural and systemic inequalities can contribute to susceptibility to COVID-19 disease and limited access to vaccines. Recognizing that Racialized and Indigenous Peoples may experience unique barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, this study explored early COVID-19 vaccine accessibility, including barriers and potential solutions to vaccine access, for these communities in Canada. We conducted semi-structured interviews about challenges to accessing COVID-19 vaccination with Racialized and Indigenous Peoples, including linguistic minorities and newcomers, in Spring 2021, just as COVID-19 vaccines were becoming more widely available in Canada. Participants were purposely selected from respondents to a Canadian national online survey. Three researchers analyzed the interviews for emergent themes using a descriptive content analysis approach in NVivo. At the time of the interview, interview participants (N = 27) intended to receive (n = 15) or had received (n = 11) at least one vaccine dose, or did not state their status (n = 1). Participants described multiple barriers to COVID-19 vaccination that they personally experienced and/or anticipated they or others could experience - including technology requirements, language barriers, lack of identification documentation, and travel challenges - as well as related solutions. These were organized into three broad categories: 1) COVID-19 disease and vaccination information, 2) vaccination booking procedures, and 3) vaccination sites. These structural and systemic barriers during the initial months of vaccine rollout substantially restricted participants' COVID-19 vaccination access, even when they were eager to get vaccinated, and should be addressed early in vaccine rollouts to facilitate optimal uptake for everyone everywhere.

Understanding the Influence of Web-Based Information, Misinformation, Disinformation, and Reinformation on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Protocol for a Multicomponent Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an explosion in the amount of information shared on the internet, including false and misleading information on SARS-CoV-2 and recommended protective behaviors. Prior to the pandemic, web-based misinformation and disinformation were already identified as having an impact on people's decision to refuse or delay recommended vaccination for themselves or their children. OBJECTIVE: The overall aims of our study are to better understand the influence of web-based misinformation and disinformation on COVID-19 vaccine decisions and investigate potential solutions to reduce the impact of web-based misinformation and disinformation about vaccines. METHODS: Based on different research approaches, the study will involve (1) the use of artificial intelligence techniques, (2) a web-based survey, (3) interviews, and (4) a scoping review and an environmental scan of the literature. RESULTS: As of September 1, 2022, data collection has been completed for all objectives. The analysis is being conducted, and results should be disseminated in the upcoming months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will help with understanding the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy among Canadian individuals and identifying effective, tailored interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among them. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41012.

Children's Perspectives on Food Allergy in Schools: A Qualitative Study.

Approximately 7% of children live with food allergy, a condition that requires dietary avoidance to prevent an allergic reaction. In this qualitative study, we aimed to understand food allergy-related experiences, beliefs and learning preferences among children with and without food allergies, to inform a school-based, food allergy education program. Data were analysed thematically. We virtually interviewed children in Kindergarten-Grade 8 in Manitoba, Canada, with (n = 7) and without (n = 9) parent-reported, physician-diagnosed food allergies. We identified three themes: Naive reliance on peers and school staff to assist with food allergy management; Limited food allergy knowledge; and, Recommended food allergy curricula: complementary perspective. Our findings will help inform the development of a school-based, food allergy education program, with a long-term goal of minimizing food allergy-related worries and optimizing safety for children with food allergy. Ongoing, school-based food allergy education is needed.

"I don't think there's a point for me to discuss it with my patients": exploring health care providers' views and behaviours regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers' knowledge and attitudes about vaccines are important determinants of their own vaccine uptake, their intention to recommend vaccines, and their patients' vaccine uptake. This qualitative study' objective was to better understand health care providers' vaccination decisions, their views on barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and proposed solutions, their opinions on vaccine policies, and their perceived role in discussing COVID-19 vaccination with patients. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines were conducted with Canadian health care providers (N = 14) in spring 2021. A qualitative thematic analysis using NVivo was conducted. RESULTS: Participants had positive attitudes toward vaccination and were vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to do so once eligible (two delayed their first dose). Only two were actively promoting COVID-19 vaccination to their patients; others either avoided discussing the topic or only provided answers when asked questions. Participants' proposed solutions to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the public were in relation to access to vaccination services, information in multiple languages, and community outreach. Most participants were in favor of mandatory vaccination policies and had mixed views on the potential impact of the Canadian vaccine-injury support program. CONCLUSIONS: While health care providers are recognized as a key source of information regarding vaccines, participants in our study did not consider it their role to provide advice on COVID-19 vaccination. This is a missed opportunity that could be avoided by ensuring health care providers have the tools and training to feel confident in engaging in vaccine discussions with their patients.