Evidence-based Design of Vaccine Hesitancy Information Resources for Health Care Providers

Objectives: After conducting interviews to assess the vaccine-related information needs of local health care providers, librarians at [institution] analyzed the resulting data, first thematically by transcript, then focused on the responses to the interview question about information resources. The team will use the results of these analyses to develop vaccine information resources that providers can refer to during conversations with patients and community members about vaccines. The resources will be presented to providers at relevant departmental and community-based meetings.

Methods: Team members analyzed the transcript data from 18 interviews thematically using an inductive coding process that included 1) group pilot coding and code generation, 2) a first round of independent coding by pairs, 3) code reconciliation again in pairs, 4) further development and definition of codes, and 5) a second round of individual coding to incorporate the newly developed codes. Frequency of code use was also recorded and analyzed. A secondary analysis of the interview question “what resources or tools would make these [vaccine hesitancy-related] conversations easier for you?” was conducted, alongside an examination of any parts of the transcripts tagged with the “information gaps” and “patient information needs” codes, to generate more targeted guidance for developing information resources for clinical use.

Results: The initial thematic analysis of the transcripts resulted in the development of 86 unique codes, with the three most frequently-used codes being “providers reducing barriers [to vaccination via] reframing the conversation/education”, “individualized conversations”, and “trust”. Other notable themes included “provider role”, “mis/disinformation”, and “patient/provider emotions”. The targeted secondary analysis revealed that providers' had opinions about resource design (handouts were a popular request), as well as content (personal stories, resources tailored to the specific reason for hesitancy). In response, the project team has drafted a guide to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy resources for local providers, which includes resources with printable patient handouts, background information for providers, and a section organized by reason for hesitancy. Resources required thorough evaluation to avoid redundancy, ensure relevance and convenience for the provider, and guarantee updated and timely information.

Conclusions: Conversations about vaccination are nuanced and often are influenced by personal, relational, logistical, and societal factors. While holistic analyses of interview data reveal rich information about the context and experiences of health care providers related to conversations about vaccines, they are limited in the specific guidance provided for the creation of information resources. Similarly, while there are many COVID-19 vaccine information resources available online, finding resources that meet the specific needs of providers can be challenging.