Medical student attitudes on vaccination relevance: A mixed-method study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
09
08
2022
entrez:
24
8
2022
pubmed:
25
8
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The study aims to investigate the attitudes of medical students regarding the importance and relevance of vaccinations, whether vaccinations should be compulsory and how to employ a new teaching concept to deal with vaccination-critical parents. This mixed-method study consists of a quantitative questionnaire and focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed by calculating the descriptive statistics, and interviews were analysed using Mayring's content analysis. A total of 170 medical students completed the questionnaire, and 59 students participated in 9 focus groups. Students reported that they felt more confident dealing with vaccination-critical parents after learning the new teaching concept. Similar results were found for medical students prior to and during the pandemic. During the pandemic, medical students viewed vaccinations for several diseases, such as measles or COVID-19, as important (range: M = 3.56, SD = 0.54 to M = 3.97, SD = 0.17). Similar results were found for medical students prior to the pandemic (range: M = 3.26, SD = 0.77 to M = 3.94, SD = 0.24). In the focus groups, however, medical students displayed controversial attitudes regarding compulsory vaccinations. While the medical students agreed on the use of vaccination for highly infectious diseases, their level of agreement decreased depending on the severity of the disease. Practical recommendations that come out of the study are creating a trustful relationship with and delivering information to patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The study aims to investigate the attitudes of medical students regarding the importance and relevance of vaccinations, whether vaccinations should be compulsory and how to employ a new teaching concept to deal with vaccination-critical parents.
METHODS
This mixed-method study consists of a quantitative questionnaire and focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed by calculating the descriptive statistics, and interviews were analysed using Mayring's content analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 170 medical students completed the questionnaire, and 59 students participated in 9 focus groups. Students reported that they felt more confident dealing with vaccination-critical parents after learning the new teaching concept. Similar results were found for medical students prior to and during the pandemic. During the pandemic, medical students viewed vaccinations for several diseases, such as measles or COVID-19, as important (range: M = 3.56, SD = 0.54 to M = 3.97, SD = 0.17). Similar results were found for medical students prior to the pandemic (range: M = 3.26, SD = 0.77 to M = 3.94, SD = 0.24). In the focus groups, however, medical students displayed controversial attitudes regarding compulsory vaccinations.
CONCLUSIONS
While the medical students agreed on the use of vaccination for highly infectious diseases, their level of agreement decreased depending on the severity of the disease. Practical recommendations that come out of the study are creating a trustful relationship with and delivering information to patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36001609
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273529
pii: PONE-D-22-04555
pmc: PMC9401119
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0273529Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Mar 1;175(3):305-307
pubmed: 33284331
Vaccine. 2014 Nov 20;32(49):6649-54
pubmed: 25280436
Nature. 2011 May 26;473(7348):443-5
pubmed: 21614055
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(4):918-931
pubmed: 30633626
Med Sci Educ. 2020 May 19;30(3):1015-1017
pubmed: 34457762
Simul Healthc. 2014 Aug;9(4):213-9
pubmed: 24787559
Fam Med. 2004 Jun;36(6):431-9
pubmed: 15181556
JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Sep 1;174(9):916
pubmed: 32716493
Vaccine. 2014 Apr 17;32(19):2150-9
pubmed: 24598724
Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1405-1406
pubmed: 32243778
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Feb;1:100012
pubmed: 33954296
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Mar 4;17(3):805-809
pubmed: 32873126
Cureus. 2016 May 01;8(5):e595
pubmed: 27335708
Pediatrics. 2013 Dec;132(6):1037-46
pubmed: 24190677
J Am Dent Assoc. 2021 Aug;152(8):596-603
pubmed: 34030867
Lancet. 2006 Feb 4;367(9508):436-42
pubmed: 16458770
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4
pubmed: 25896383
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jun;159:100-7
pubmed: 27176467
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Nov 1;16(11):2809-2815
pubmed: 32238041
Am J Public Health. 2015 Oct;105(10):1998-2004
pubmed: 25790386
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;35(8):781-783
pubmed: 32761440
Gesundheitswesen. 2003 Jul;65(7):464-70
pubmed: 12891479
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2025594
pubmed: 33079199
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Nov 08;9(11):
pubmed: 34835226
Behav Med. 2018 Jan-Mar;44(1):62-76
pubmed: 27337530
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Dec;9(12):2643-8
pubmed: 24247148
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015 Jan;14(1):99-117
pubmed: 25373435
J Cyst Fibros. 2015 Jul;14(4):540-6
pubmed: 25563520
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Mar-Apr;21(2):104-9
pubmed: 27199617
BMJ Open. 2021 Jun 15;11(6):e048172
pubmed: 34130963
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 7;355(23):2389-91
pubmed: 17151362