"If they tell me to get it, I'll get it. If they don't...": Immunization decision-making processes of immigrant mothers.

OBJECTIVE: To understand information-gathering and decision-making processes of immigrant mothers for scheduled childhood vaccines, vaccination during pregnancy, seasonal flu and pandemic vaccination. METHODS: We conducted 23 qualitative semi-structured interviews with immigrated mothers from Bhutanese refugee, South Asian and Chinese communities. Participants lived in Edmonton, Alberta and had at least one child under eight years old. Using NVivo qualitative software, we generated an inductive coding scheme through content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Our three main findings on information gathering and use in vaccination decisions were: 1) participants in all three communities passively received immunization information. Most mothers learned about vaccine practices exclusively from health care practitioners during scheduled visits. Social networks were primary sources of information in origin countries but were lost during immigration to Canada; 2) participants demonstrated universal trust in vaccines (i.e., no anti-vaccination sentiment). They were comfortable in receiving vaccines for themselves and their children, regardless of past adverse reactions; 3) participants' recollection of the H1N1 vaccination campaign was almost nil, demonstrating the lack of reach of public health vaccination campaigns to designated priority groups (pregnant women and children) in Alberta. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the limitations of Alberta's current vaccination communication strategies in reaching immigrant women. When immigrant mothers receive vaccination information, our results indicate they will likely follow recommendations. However, our study shows that current communication strategies are not making this information accessible to immigrant women, which limits their ability to make informed vaccination decisions for themselves and their children.

Communicating the promise for ocular gene therapies: challenges and recommendations.

PURPOSE: To identify challenges and pose solutions for communications about ocular gene therapy between patients and clinicians as clinical research progresses. DESIGN: Literature review with recommendations. METHODS: Literature review of science communication best practices to inform recommendations for patient-clinician discussions about ocular gene therapy. RESULTS: Clinicians need to employ communications about ocular gene therapy that are both attentive to patient priorities and concerns and responsive to other sources of information, including overly positive news media and the Internet. Coverage often conflates research with therapy-clinical trials are experimental and are not risk free. If proven safe and efficacious, gene therapy may present a treatment but not a cure for patients who have already experienced vision loss. Clinicians can assist patients by providing realistic estimates for lengthy clinical development timelines and positioning current research within models of clinical translation. This enables patients to weigh future therapeutic options when making current disease management decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular gene therapy clinical trials are raising hopes for treating a myriad of hereditary retinopathies, but most such therapies are many years in the future. Clinicians should be prepared to counter overly positive messaging, found in news media and on the Internet, with optimism tempered by evidence to support the ethical translation of gene therapy and other novel biotherapeutics.