Perceived impact of discussions with a healthcare professional on patients’ decision regarding COVID-19 vaccine

ABSTRACT

There is evidence that advice from Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) plays an important role in patients’ decision to get vaccinated, but the extent to which patients perceive this impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived impact of a discussion with a HCP on participants’ decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults who consulted a general practitioner (GP) or a pharmacist in Ile-de-France, France, after COVID-19 vaccines became available (October-November 2021 period). A total of 344 participants were included, 65.2% of whom reported having had a discussion about COVID-19 vaccines with a HCP. Overall, 55% of participants were advised to be vaccinated by their HCP. Most of the discussions took place with a GP (n = 203, 48.9%). According to 52.5% of participants, the discussion had a positive impact, i.e. it was perceived as encouraging vaccination. The latter reported that, among HCPs, GPs had the greatest number of discussions with a positive impact on the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (93.1%). In the study population, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate, according to the WHO definition, was high (38.1%), although the COVID-19 vaccine coverage rate was 87.1%. Vaccine hesitant participants were more likely to report a discussion that had a perceived negative impact on their decision to get vaccinated (20.0%) than non-hesitant participants (5.8%, p = .004).

KEYWORDS:

• COVID-19
• vaccination
• healthcare professionals
• vaccination refusal

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

Conceptualization, A.C., A.F. and J.P.; methodology, A.C., A.F. and J.P.; software, A.C.; validation, A.C., A.F., J.P., H.P., M.E. and P.J.; formal analysis, A.C., A.F. and J.P.; investigation, A.C.; data curation, A.C.; writing – original draft preparation, A.C.; writing – review and editing, A.C., A.F., J.P., H.P., M.E. and P.J.; supervision, A.F., J.P., H.P., M.E. and P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Institutional review board statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Collège National des Généralistes Enseignants (CNGE) (authorization no. 308 on September 7, 2021)

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants who participated in the study.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2024.2307735

Additional information

Funding

This article was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP)