Focus on CME at Dalhousie University How to Manage Parents Unsure About Immunization With the emergence of anti-immunization groups, more parents are opting not to inoculate their children. While physicians must listen to the arguments presented, it is their responsibility to educate parents on the importance of immunization. By Scott A. Halperin, MD Presented at Dalhousie University, Day of Pediatrics, Truro, Nova Scotia, April, 1999. I mmunization programs throughout the developed world increasingly are becoming victims of their own success. High levels of childhood immunization coverage and global-targeted efforts have eradicated smallpox, eliminated polio from the western hemisphere and made remarkable gains in the global effort to eradicate polio. The rate of measles has diminished in most of the Americas, and Haemophilus influenzae (H. Flu) type b meningitis has been nearly eliminated in Dr. Halperin is professor of pediatrics and associate professor of microbiology and immunology, Clinical Trials Research Centre, Dalhousie University, and the Izaak Walton Killam Grace Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 62 The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 Canada and the United States. With the disappearance of these once common and deadly diseases, many young adults of child-bearing age no longer have first-hand experience of these illnesses, and, therefore, have not learned to fear them. Concurrent with this epidemiological and intellectual lack of exposure to these vaccine-preventable diseases, a vocal anti-immunization movement has grown, and it has become increasingly sophisticated and subtle. Often, these organizations had their beginnings in a personal tragedy in which the founder, or his/her child, developed a condition that the individual attributed to receiving a vaccine. Unfortunately, the medical community often inadvertently plays a role in this process through misinformation, or inadequate communication and understanding. As these organizations have matured, many no longer claim to be anti-immunization, but, instead, promote themselves as pro- Case Study A young couple enters your office with their two-month-old child. They indicate that they are unsure whether or not they should begin the infant immunization series. They would like to discuss the issue with you. Sitting in your office, the parents say that the diseases against which the vaccine protects no longer exist, and that no one they know ever had any of these illnesses. They go on to say that they have heard the vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases are, and, besides, with so many other children immunized, their child will be safe, even if left unimmunized. Finally, they express the concern that the immune system is being overwhelmed, and suggest that it might be better to let their child have the diseases, one at a time. You settle back to have an open and frank discussion about immunization with the parents. informed choice. Advances in electronic communication and publishing technology facilitate dissemination of information in highly professional formats. Parents are confused because they are inundated with information and have no means to “separate the wheat from the chaff.” The popular media, citing principles of equal time and treatment, present both sides of the immunization issue as if the arguments have equal scientific validity. Parents, such as the ones mentioned in the Case Study above, continue to turn to their family physician for advice. The following is an eight-step approach to addressing the issues raised (Table 1). Listen, Evaluate, Categorize One of the most effective interventions with parents is to be a good listener. Determine the specific concerns of the particular parents so that they know you are taking their concerns seriously. This will strengthen the patient-physician bond and will facilitate the informed decision-making process that you hope will take place. It also assists you in tailoring the selection of information, reasons and arguments most likely to be effective. Inherent in being a good listener is having sufficient time to listen, without the pressures of a next appointment. Therefore, be aware that effective management of these issues cannot be done in a short The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 63 Immunization Table 1 Eight-Step Approach to Respond to Parents Unsure About Immunization 1. Listen, Evaluate, and Categorize 2. Recognize Legitimate Concerns 3. Provide Context 4. Refute Misinformation 5. Provide Valid Information 6. Recognize That it is the Parents’ Decision 7. Educate About Potential Consequences 8. Make a Clear Recommendation visit, but requires a prolonged (45- to 60-minute) counseling session. Evaluating and categorizing your audience may seem cynical, but it may permit you to spend time more effectively with parents who truly seek advice, and to avoid the frustrations and wasted effort with those who do not. In the author’s practice, he has divided parents referred to him into five separate categories: Uninformed but Educable. These typically are parents who have been told by friends or relatives that they should not immunize their infant, but do not yet hold those views themselves. They are looking for information and often are seeking help in countering the arguments of those giving them contrary advice. The chance of achieving a positive outcome (immunization) for infants of these parents is high. Misinformed but Correctable. Parents in this group have more information than the preceding 64 The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 group, often obtained from a television or radio talk show, a parenting magazine, or the Internet. They typically have not been presented with the “other side of the story” and often are unaware that there is a counter argument. Although occasionally resistant to giving up these new-found beliefs (the first information learned about an issue is often the best-learned), they slowly may moderate their position, and frequently consent to immunization—if not that day, then at a later visit. Well-Read and Open-Minded. These parents typically have been exposed to the anti-vaccination information, but have explored the issues more thoroughly through additional reading. They come to you for further discussion and for assistance in putting the proper weight on each argument. They appreciate your assistance in pointing out the fallacies or false logic of many of the statements and “facts” they have read, particularly on certain Internet Web sites. One needs to be well prepared for discussions with these parents, although, ultimately they will agree to immunization. Interestingly, these parents often provide phased agreement to immunization (i.e., they first consent to immunize with certain antigens and, over time, agree to the use of others). Convinced and Content. Parents in this category are convinced that immunization is bad for their children and are content with their decision. The only reason they find themselves in your office is to please someone else, such as their parents, who have badgered them to at least discuss the issue with their physician. As a pediatric infectious disease consultant, the author often is referred parents in this category, who agree to the referral so as not to jeopardize their relationship with their family physician. Success is unusual, and the most one can hope for is to plant a seed of doubt that may lead them to re-examine their position in the future. Extensive discussion with this group of parents is seldom productive. Committed and Missionary. These parents are typically “card-carrying” members of the anti-vaccination movement and come to your office, not to discuss the role of immunization, but rather to convince you that immunization is evil and that you should no longer immunize any of the children in your practice. A good clue that parents are in this group is that they rarely bring their children to the office visit. Parents in this category probably will cling to their beliefs and not appreciate the value of immunization; therefore, extensive discussion is non-productive. Recognize Legitimate Concerns In discussing immunization, it is essential that health-care providers recognize that adverse events are associated with vaccines and the parents concerns are legitimate. Physicians should emphasize that most adverse events are mild and self-limited— such as fever, soreness at the injection site and irritability. Physicians also should discuss less common, more severe adverse events, stressing that most have no lasting effect. An example of this type of event is a febrile seizure. Finally, one should not deny or ignore real, but rare, severe adverse events that can be caused by immunization, such as anaphylaxis with any vaccine, vaccine-associated paralytic polio from oral poliovirus vaccine, and disseminated bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) infection. Provide Context Context is important when discussing risk with parents. Risk often is misunderstood and perceived as an all-or-nothing issue. It is useful to provide parents with the comparative risks associated with the vaccine and with the disease, and to discuss the likelihood of becoming infected in the absence of immunization. A good example is febrile seizures, Immunization has been one of the major medical advances and has saved countless lives over the past 50 years. which occur after one in 1,700 doses of the wholecell pertussis vaccine and twentyfold more frequently after natural infection. It is also important to let parents know what has happened in countries where immunization rates have fallen, and where the vaccinepreventable disease re-emerged. Describe the experience in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan, after their pertussis immunization programs were disrupted, where the number of adverse events associated with the resurgence of pertussis dwarfed the adverse events previously associated with the vaccine. The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 65 Immunization Rare vaccine-associated adverse events also can be placed into context with natural-occurring adverse events. For example, the estimated risk of encephalopathy after measles vaccine is one per one million to two million doses. Given that nearly eight million doses of measles vaccine are administered in the United States annually (twice the birth cohort in their two-dose measles program), one would expect to see several cases of encephalopathy per year. This risk is similar to that of dying from being struck by lightning or a tornado. Parents often are concerned about the risk they take by immunizing their child, but ignore risks taken by not immunizing. Refute Misinformation Do not allow yourself to be surprised by the antivaccination groups. Know their current claims and be able to demonstrate their fallacies. There are many sources of misinformation, including television “documentaries,” magazines, newspapers, and most effectively, the Internet. Visit the antivaccination Web sites and examine their tactics. Spend time exploring their links so you are familiar with the type of information to which the child’s parents are exposed. These sites are well established, glossy, and are updated frequently, so return visits are advisable. Some Web sites in this category worthy of exploration include: • “The National Vaccine Information Center” (www.909shot.com); • “Vaccines: The Truth Revealed” (www.odomnet.com/vaccines/); and • “People Advocating Vaccine Education (www.vaccines.bizland.com/) 68 The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 Recognize, however, that it is not realistic to expect to keep abreast of every new adverse event that some group contends is caused by immunization. When confronted by a parent with a new concern, avoid using the response: “Well, I guess it’s possible,” because that may be all the parent takes away from the conversation. Instead, tell the parent honestly that you have not heard about that alleged association, but will obtain more information for them. Contact Health Canada or the Centers for Disease Control (see next section), who continuously update information about vaccine-associated adverse events and vaccine-adverse event allegations. The following lists a few examples of common misconceptions, and possible physician responses to the questions raised: 1. Patient: “Before vaccines were introduced, these diseases already had begun to disappear because of better hygiene and sanitation.” Physician: “The recent success with H. Flu type b-conjugate vaccines have virtually eliminated meningitis due to this pathogen at a time when there has been no change in hygiene or sanitation in North America.” 2. Patient: “The majority of people who get the disease have been vaccinated.” Physician: “As immunization rates rise, an increasing number of cases that occur will be vaccine failures since no vaccine is 100% effective; however, the total number of cases occurring has diminished dramatically.” 3. Patient: “There are problems with the vaccines that we don’t yet know.” Physician: “Long-term safety monitoring has yet to identify such problems.” 4. Patient: “Vaccine-preventable diseases have now been eliminated from North America, so we can stop immunizing.” Physician: “The resurgence of pertussis and of diphtheria in the countries of the former Soviet Union where vaccination was discontinued Immunization provides a dramatic demon- • Your Child’s Best Shot, written stration of the fallacy of this by Dr. Ronald Gold, and pubargument.” lished by the Canadian 5. Patient: “Giving a child multiPaediatric Society in 1997 (in ple vaccinations for different English and in French); and diseases at the same time • What Every Parent Should increases the risk of harmful Know About Vaccines, by Dr. side effects and can overload Paul Offitt, and published by the immune system.” MacMillan in 1998. Physician: “Adverse events There are excellent Internet associated with combination sites with immunization inforvaccines are usually less than mation directed toward parents, the total effect including: of the diseases • The Canadian involved. The Paediatric immune sysS o c i e t y he immune system is tem is exposed (www.cps.ca); exposed to far more to far more • H e a l t h antigens every day antigens every Canada’s from breathing and day from Immunization breathing and eating than could ever Division eating than (www.hc-sc.gc. be provided in an could ever be ca/hpb/lcdc/ immunization. provided in an bid/di/index.html); immunization.” • The National Immunization Program of the USA Centers for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov/nip); Provide Valid • The National Immunization Information Information Network of the Do not be defensive. Respond to Infectious Disease Society of the misinformation, but also proAmerica and the Pediatric vide additional, more reliable Infectious Diseases Society data, including information on the (www.idsociety.org/vaccine/ eradication and elimination of disindex.html); eases, decreases in infant mortali- • The Department of Vaccines ty, and the effects of interruptions and Biologicals in vaccine programs. Provide (www.who.ch/ gpv-safety); information in understandable for- • The Institute for Vaccine Safety mats. References directed to parof Johns Hopkins University ents should include: (www.vaccinesafety.edu); and T The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 73 Immunization • The Immunization (www.immunize.org). Action Coalition Recognize That It Is the Parents’ Decision Immunization is not compulsory in Canada. Two provinces, New Brunswick and Ontario, have school-entry requirements, but parents can opt not to have their child immunized. The goal is to convince parents to immunize their children by the overwhelming logic of the argument, but you will not always be successful. Educate About Potential Consequences Be sure that parents understand the consequences of their children contracting the disease in question, and that they are placing their child at risk. Challenge them to ask themselves what their children would want them to do if they could express an opinion. Parents often are concerned about the risk they take by immunizing their children, but ignore risks taken by not immunizing them. It seems that concern about the guilt associated from risks of commission (vaccinating) is greater than concern about the guilt associated with the risks of omission (not vaccinating). This myth must be dispelled and parents must be helped to realize that there should be no guilt associated with a well-thought-out decision to minimize the risks to their children by immunizing them. Make a Clear Recommendation Avoid being direct unless specifically asked, but leave no doubt as to your opinion and recommendation. If you are unsure, the parents will be as well. Parents consistently indicate that the physician’s advice about immunization is the most 74 The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 important factor in their decision-making process. Therefore, do not be subtle or indecisive. Summary and Conclusion Immunization has been one of the major medical advances and has saved countless lives, over the past 50 years. It remains one of the most costeffective medical interventions available. Increasing unfamiliarity with vaccine-preventable diseases, underestimation of the disproportionate influence of the small, but vocal, anti-vaccination movement, and complacency amongst health-care providers about the public’s vulnerability to well-packaged misinformation may place the hard-fought advances in prevention of infectious diseases in jeopardy. Given appropriate information and resources, the primary-care physician is best suited to promote the goals and benefits of a well-immunized population. Acknowledgments Thank you to Dr. Robert Pless for reviewing the manuscript and providing helpful thoughts and comments. Suggested Reading 1. Ball LK, Evans G, Bostrom A: Risky business: challenges in vaccine risk communication. Pediatrics 1998; 101:453-8. 2. Gold, R: Your Child’s Best Shot: A Parent’s Guide to Vaccination. Ottawa: Canadian Paediatric Society; 1997. 3. Offit, PA, Bell LM (eds.): What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines. MacMillan, New York, 1998. 4. Pless R: Vaccine safety resource material for providers and the public. Can Commun Dis Rep. 1998; 24:141-4. 5. Stanwick R: Immunization information on the web site— A risky business or misconstrued risk? Pediatr Child Health 1998; 3:311-2. 6. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnson RB (eds.): Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1991. 7. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB (eds.): Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1994. Information for Patients Immunization Resources for Parents Immunization is an important preventative health care measure that you can provide for your children. Many parents are concerned that vaccines may be harmful because of things they have heard from friends, read in newspapers or magazines, heard on the radio or television, or found on the Internet. The following list of books and Internet Web sites contain information that is useful and dependable, and will help you make the best decision for your children’s future. Books • Your Child’s Best Shot: A Parent’s Guide to Vaccination, written by Dr. Ronald Gold and published by the Canadian Paediatric Society, 1997. Available in English and French; and • What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines, by Dr. Paul Offitt, and published by MacMillan, 1998. Internet Web Sites • The Canadian Immunization Awareness Program (www.ciap.cpha.ca) • The Canadian Paediatric Society (www.cps.ca) • Health Canada’s Immunization Division (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/bid/di) • The National Immunization Information Network of the Infectious Disease Society of America and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (www.idsociety.org/vaccine/index.html) • The Department of Vaccines and Biological (www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/) • The Institute for Vaccine Safety of Johns Hopkins University (www.vaccinesafety.edu) and • The Immunization Action Coalition (www.immunize.org) Other Instructions Prepared by Dr. Scott A. Halperin, professor of pediatrics and associate professor of microbiology and immunology, Clinical Trials Research Centre, Dalhouse University, and the Izaak Walton Killam Grace Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia. May be copied and distributed to patients. The Canadian Journal of CME / January 2000 75
© Copyright 2024