Embracing context: Lessons from designing a dialogue-based intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.

Dialogue with people who are vaccine hesitant has been recommended as a method to increase vaccination uptake. The process of cultivating dialogue is shaped by the context in which it occurs, yet the development of interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy with dialogue often overlooks the role of context and favors relatively fixed solutions. This reflexive paper shares three key lessons related to context for dialogue-based interventions. These lessons emerged during a participatory research project to develop a pilot intervention to create open dialogue among healthcare workers in Belgium about COVID-19 vaccination concerns. Through a mixed methods study consisting of in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys, we engaged healthcare workers in the design, testing, and evaluation of a digital platform featuring text-based and video-based (face-to-face) interactions. The lessons are: (1) what dialogue means, entails, and requires can vary for a population and context, (2) inherent tension exists between helping participants voice (and overcome) their concerns and exposing them to others' ideas that may exacerbate those concerns, and (3) interactional exchanges (e.g., with peers or experts) that matter to participants may shape the dialogue in terms of its content and form. We suggest that having a discovery-orientation-meaning to work not only inductively and iteratively but also reflexively-is a necessary part of the development of dialogue-based interventions. Our case also sheds light on the influences between: dialogue topic/content, socio-political landscape, population, intervention aim, dialogue form, ethics, researcher position, and types of interactional exchanges.

Strategic silences, eroded trust: The impact of divergent COVID-19 vaccine sentiments on healthcare workers' relations with peers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Polarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients.Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage. METHODS: Interviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients. RESULTS: Most participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others' openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments. DISCUSSION: Belgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in "strategic silences" around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium's, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks.

Insights into vaccine hesitancy from systems thinking, Rwanda.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate vaccine hesitancy leading to underimmunization and a measles outbreak in Rwanda and to develop a conceptual, community-level model of behavioural factors. METHODS: Local immunization systems in two Rwandan communities (one recently experienced a measles outbreak) were explored using systems thinking, human-centred design and behavioural frameworks. Data were collected between 2018 and 2020 from: discussions with 11 vaccination service providers (i.e. hospital and health centre staff); interviews with 161 children's caregivers at health centres; and nine validation interviews with health centre staff. Factors influencing vaccine hesitancy were categorized using the 3Cs framework: confidence, complacency and convenience. A conceptual model of vaccine hesitancy mechanisms with feedback loops was developed. FINDINGS: A comparison of service providers' and caregivers' perspectives in both rural and peri-urban settings showed that similar factors strengthened vaccine uptake: (i) high trust in vaccines and service providers based on personal relationships with health centre staff; (ii) the connecting role of community health workers; and (iii) a strong sense of community. Factors identified as increasing vaccine hesitancy (e.g. service accessibility and inadequate follow-up) differed between service providers and caregivers and between settings. The conceptual model could be used to explain drivers of the recent measles outbreak and to guide interventions designed to increase vaccine uptake. CONCLUSION: The application of behavioural frameworks and systems thinking revealed vaccine hesitancy mechanisms in Rwandan communities that demonstrate the interrelationship between immunization services and caregivers' vaccination behaviour. Confidence-building social structures and context-dependent challenges that affect vaccine uptake were also identified.