Cited by 74Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation Science

Vaccine hesitancy educational tools for healthcare providers and trainees: A scoping review

Open access
Lip, A., Pateman, M., Fullerton, M.M., Chen, H.M., Bailey, L., Houle, S., Davidson, S., Constantinescu, C.·2023·Vaccine

Abstract

In the era of vaccine hesitancy, highlighted by the current SARS-CoV2 pandemic, there is an acute need to develop an approach to reduce and address apprehension towards vaccinations. We sought to map and present an overview of existing educational interventions for healthcare providers (HCPs) on strategies to engage in effective vaccine discussion. We applied the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology framework in this scoping review. We searched five relevant databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS) and grey literature through the Google search engine using keywords and subject headings that were systematically identified. We identified 3384 citations in peer-reviewed literature and 41 citations in grey literature. After screening for our inclusion criteria, we included 28 citations from peer reviewed literature and 16 citations from grey literature for analysis. We identified a total of 41 unique education interventions. Interventions were available from multiple disciplines, training levels, clinical settings, and diseases/vaccines. Interventions predominantly centered around two foci: knowledge sharing and communication training. Most interventions identified from peer-reviewed literature were facilitated and were applied with multiple modes of delivery. Interventions from grey literature were more topical and generally self-directed. We identified several gaps in knowledge. Firstly, accessibility and generalizability of interventions was limited. Secondly, distribution of interventions did not adequately address nursing and pharmacy disciplines, and did not cover the breadth of medical specialties for whom vaccine discussions apply. Thirdly, no interventions addressed self monitoring and the clinicians' recognition and management of emotions during difficult conversations. There is a need to address this gap and provide available, credible and comprehensive educational interventions that will support our healthcare providers in effective communication with vaccine hesitant patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.09.093

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing educational interventions for healthcare providers on vaccine conversations are not easily accessible, are targeted towards medical learners, and are not inclusive of nurses and pharmacists.

    “The review identified that current interventions are not easily accessible, are targeted towards medical learners (e.g., medical students, residents, physicians, etc.) and are not inclusive of other professionals that also play a key role in immunization distribution and uptake, such as nurses and pharmacists.”

    From Development and evaluation of virtual simulation games to increase the confidence and self-efficacy of healthcare learners in vaccine communication, advocacy, and promotion (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussion (Gaps in knowledge; page unavailable) says accessibility was limited and interventions disproportionately targeted medical providers. The Results (Context Summary; page unavailable) also identifies nursing- and pharmacy-specific interventions, though they were much less common. Thus, the claim that these professions were not included overstates the review's finding. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Das Neves CG. IPBES (2020) workshop report on biodiversity and pandemics of the intergovernmental Platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services 2020. https://vetinst.brage.unit.no/vetinst-xmlui/handle/11250/2828557. Accessed 7 February 2022

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lip, A., Pateman, M., Fullerton, M. M., Chen, H. M., Bailey, L., Houle, S., Davidson, S., & Constantinescu, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Lip, A.
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
23-35
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4309971344
Cited by
74
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
vaccine hesitancy, health professions education, educational intervention, vaccine communication, clinician-patient communication, medical trainees, pharmacy, COVID-19 vaccination, difficult conversations
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Vaccination Hesitancy, Health Personnel, Humans, RNA, Viral, Vaccines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review