The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals toward clinical trials and routine implementation of antenatal vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus: A multicenter questionnaire study

Attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals toward clinical trials and routine implementation of antenatal vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus: A multicenter questionnaire study
Attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals toward clinical trials and routine implementation of antenatal vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus: A multicenter questionnaire study


Introduction: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of infant hospitalization and mortality. With multiple vaccines in development, we aimed to determine: (1) the awareness of RSV among pregnant women and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and (2) attitudes toward clinical trials and routine implementation of antenatal RSV vaccination.

Methods: Separate questionnaires for pregnant women and HCPs were distributed within 4 hospitals in South England (July 2017–January 2018).

Results: Responses from 314 pregnant women and 204 HCPs (18% obstetricians, 75% midwives, 7% unknown) were analyzed. Most pregnant women (88%) and midwives (66%) had no/very little awareness of RSV, unlike obstetricians (14%). Among pregnant women, 29% and 75% would likely accept RSV vaccination as part of a trial, or if routinely recommended, respectively. Younger women (16–24 years), those of 21–30 weeks’ gestation, and with experience of RSV were significantly more likely to participate in trials [odds ratio (OR): 1.42 (1.72–9.86); OR: 2.29 (1.22–4.31); OR: 9.07 (1.62–50.86), respectively]. White-British women and those of 21–30 weeks’ gestation were more likely to accept routinely recommended vaccination [OR: 2.16 (1.07–4.13); OR: 2.10 (1.07–4.13)]. Obstetricians were more likely than midwives to support clinical trials [92% vs. 68%, OR: 2.50 (1.01–6.16)] and routine RSV vaccination [89% vs. 79%, OR: 4.08 (1.53–9.81)], as were those with prior knowledge of RSV, and who deemed it serious.

Conclusions: RSV awareness is low among pregnant women and midwives. Education will be required to support successful implementation of routine antenatal vaccination. Research is needed to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women and HCPs, particularly midwives.
0891-3668
944-951
Wilcox, Christopher
e2c4c36a-e2e5-43a5-9fd6-7198cc15dd53
Calvert, Anna
03bc971b-ed4f-4c6c-bcb5-29943bff1661
Metz, Jane
b9e1bd2d-70fa-4b7f-ab8a-0b921cdd09f5
Kilich, Eliz
e82c5965-d63d-49b4-af14-cde7929a5633
Macleod, Rachel
8700e185-4225-42dd-930e-05fe45fc3112
Beadon, Kirsten
1dc52339-2883-46b0-8837-bc9eebdbacae
Heath, Paul T.
b9b6e0e4-6bd0-4c16-b9f6-607b00137fe4
Khalil, Asma
b1f0d35b-6e04-4b2a-acfb-8aaac887d512
Finn, Adam
1c9de3fb-4f8b-4ce4-812e-c93506254d34
Snape, Matthew D.
184fac36-63b2-40d2-be21-c972f41d07ab
Vandrevala, Tushna
45ccaf5a-cb30-40df-ba91-1ef166672468
Coleman, Matthew A.
ad551610-e9af-48d3-b7cb-30cea7dcd5af
Jones, Christine E
48229079-8b58-4dcb-8374-d9481fe7b426
Wilcox, Christopher
e2c4c36a-e2e5-43a5-9fd6-7198cc15dd53
Calvert, Anna
03bc971b-ed4f-4c6c-bcb5-29943bff1661
Metz, Jane
b9e1bd2d-70fa-4b7f-ab8a-0b921cdd09f5
Kilich, Eliz
e82c5965-d63d-49b4-af14-cde7929a5633
Macleod, Rachel
8700e185-4225-42dd-930e-05fe45fc3112
Beadon, Kirsten
1dc52339-2883-46b0-8837-bc9eebdbacae
Heath, Paul T.
b9b6e0e4-6bd0-4c16-b9f6-607b00137fe4
Khalil, Asma
b1f0d35b-6e04-4b2a-acfb-8aaac887d512
Finn, Adam
1c9de3fb-4f8b-4ce4-812e-c93506254d34
Snape, Matthew D.
184fac36-63b2-40d2-be21-c972f41d07ab
Vandrevala, Tushna
45ccaf5a-cb30-40df-ba91-1ef166672468
Coleman, Matthew A.
ad551610-e9af-48d3-b7cb-30cea7dcd5af
Jones, Christine E
48229079-8b58-4dcb-8374-d9481fe7b426

Wilcox, Christopher, Calvert, Anna, Metz, Jane, Kilich, Eliz, Macleod, Rachel, Beadon, Kirsten, Heath, Paul T., Khalil, Asma, Finn, Adam, Snape, Matthew D., Vandrevala, Tushna, Coleman, Matthew A. and Jones, Christine E (2019) Attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals toward clinical trials and routine implementation of antenatal vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus: A multicenter questionnaire study. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 38 (9), 944-951. (doi:10.1097/inf.0000000000002384).

Record type: Article

Abstract



Introduction: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of infant hospitalization and mortality. With multiple vaccines in development, we aimed to determine: (1) the awareness of RSV among pregnant women and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and (2) attitudes toward clinical trials and routine implementation of antenatal RSV vaccination.

Methods: Separate questionnaires for pregnant women and HCPs were distributed within 4 hospitals in South England (July 2017–January 2018).

Results: Responses from 314 pregnant women and 204 HCPs (18% obstetricians, 75% midwives, 7% unknown) were analyzed. Most pregnant women (88%) and midwives (66%) had no/very little awareness of RSV, unlike obstetricians (14%). Among pregnant women, 29% and 75% would likely accept RSV vaccination as part of a trial, or if routinely recommended, respectively. Younger women (16–24 years), those of 21–30 weeks’ gestation, and with experience of RSV were significantly more likely to participate in trials [odds ratio (OR): 1.42 (1.72–9.86); OR: 2.29 (1.22–4.31); OR: 9.07 (1.62–50.86), respectively]. White-British women and those of 21–30 weeks’ gestation were more likely to accept routinely recommended vaccination [OR: 2.16 (1.07–4.13); OR: 2.10 (1.07–4.13)]. Obstetricians were more likely than midwives to support clinical trials [92% vs. 68%, OR: 2.50 (1.01–6.16)] and routine RSV vaccination [89% vs. 79%, OR: 4.08 (1.53–9.81)], as were those with prior knowledge of RSV, and who deemed it serious.

Conclusions: RSV awareness is low among pregnant women and midwives. Education will be required to support successful implementation of routine antenatal vaccination. Research is needed to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women and HCPs, particularly midwives.

Text
RSV study_PIDJ_R2_clean - Accepted Manuscript
Download (149kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 24 April 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 3 July 2019
Published date: 1 September 2019
Additional Information: Copyright © 2019, Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 430451
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/430451
ISSN: 0891-3668
PURE UUID: 196a285c-0521-4b1f-aa50-1ea0f034a9ab
ORCID for Christine E Jones: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1523-2368

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 May 2019 16:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 07:48

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Anna Calvert
Author: Jane Metz
Author: Eliz Kilich
Author: Rachel Macleod
Author: Kirsten Beadon
Author: Paul T. Heath
Author: Asma Khalil
Author: Adam Finn
Author: Matthew D. Snape
Author: Tushna Vandrevala
Author: Matthew A. Coleman

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×