Objectives We aimed to provide a detailed characterisation of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine awareness, knowledge and information sources in the HPV vaccine decision-making process of youth, both male and female, in Switzerland. Design With a mixed-method study design, we conducted quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews, which lasted 20–45 min. Setting and participants We recruited participants, 15–26 years of age, in physicians’ offices, in a local sexual health clinic, and during military enlistment. We administered quantitative questionnaires to 997 youth participants (585 male, 412 female) and conducted qualitative interviews with 31 youth (17 male, 14 female). Primary and secondary outcome measures We assessed HPV vaccine awareness, knowledge, information sources and vaccination status. Results In the study’s quantitative component, 108 (20%) male and 262 (65%) female participants had received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine. 697 (70%) participants were knowledgeable about the HPV vaccine. Females were more likely to be knowledgeable than males (342/412 (83%) vs 355/585 (61%); p<0.01). Younger participants in the sample compared with older participants were more likely to be aware of HPV vaccine (135/148 (91%) vs 695/849 (82%); p4 years prior to the data collection, HPV vaccine knowledge was higher among females than males, and a female-gendered perception of HPV vaccine remains prevalent. Internet and social media were minor HPV vaccine information sources. Study findings demonstrate that HPV knowledge matters for HPV vaccine uptake and suggest that we should improve HPV information quality and access for youth, particularly by tailoring knowledge campaigns to young men.

Introduction Vaccine hesitancy is a complex public health issue referring to concerns about the safety, efficacy or need for vaccination. Relatively little is known about vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland. This ongoing study (2017–2021) focuses on biomedical and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers and their patients since healthcare professionals play important roles in vaccination decision-making. This national research programme seeks to assess the sociocultural determinants of vaccine hesitancy regarding childhood and human papillomavirus vaccines in Switzerland. We aim to provide a detailed characterisation of vaccine hesitancy, including CAM and biomedical perspectives, patient–provider interactions, and sociocultural factors, to establish the mediating effects of vaccine hesitancy on underimmunisation, and to design an intervention to improve vaccination communication and counselling among physicians, parents and adolescents. Methods and analysis Our transdisciplinary team employs a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study design. We have established a network of more than 150 medical providers across Switzerland, including more than 40 CAM practitioners. For the qualitative component, we conduct interviews with parents, youth, and biomedical and CAM providers and observations of vaccination consultations and school vaccination information sessions. For the quantitative component, a sample of 1350 parents of young children and 722 young adults (15–26 years) and their medical providers respond to questionnaires. We measure vaccine hesitancy with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines 15-item survey and review vaccination certificates to assess vaccination status. We administer additional questions based on findings from qualitative research, addressing communication with medical providers, vaccine information sources and perceptions of risk control vis-à-vis vaccine-preventable diseases. The questionnaires capture sociodemographics, political views, religion and spirituality, and moral foundations. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the local ethics committee. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to healthcare professionals, researchers and the public via conferences and public presentations.

Objectives The aim of this study was to better understand parental trust in and satisfaction with information sources and medical providers regarding decision making about childhood vaccines. Setting The study was part of a Swiss national research programme investigating vaccine hesitancy and underimmunisation. Participants We conducted qualitative interviews with 37 providers and 30 parents, observed 34 vaccination consultations, and then conducted quantitative surveys with 130 providers (both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) oriented and biomedically oriented) and 1390 parents. Main outcome measures Participants’ vaccination information sources used in their decision-making process, parents’ trust in and satisfaction with these sources and providers. Results Based on the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines scale, we considered 501 parents as vaccine-hesitant (VH) and 889 parents as non-VH. Whereas both groups mentioned providers as the most trusted source of information, VH-parents were less likely to mention paediatricians (N=358 (71%) vs N=755 (85%)) and public health authorities (N=101 (20%) vs N=333 (37%)) than non-VH-parents. VH-parents were more likely to have consulted another provider (N=196 (39%) vs N=173 (19%)) than non-VH-parents, to express less satisfaction with both their primary (N=342 (82%) vs N=586 (91%)) and other providers (N=82 (42%) vs N=142 (82%)) and less trust in their primary (N=368 (88%) vs N=632 (98%)) and other providers (N=108 (55%) vs N=146 (84%)). VH-parents were less likely to be satisfied with their biomedical primary provider than non-VH-parents (100 (69%) vs 467 (91%)). However, when the primary provider was CAM-oriented, there were similar levels of satisfaction among both groups (237 (89%) VH-parents vs 118 (89%) non-VH-parents). All differences were significant (p<0.05). Conclusions While the provider remains the main information source, VH parents turn to additional sources and providers, which is likely related to VH parents being rather dissatisfied with and distrusting in obtained information and their provider. Ethics The local ethics committee (Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz, EKNZ; project ID number 2017-00725) approved the study.

Objective To identify, describe and map the research tools used to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, refusal, acceptance and access in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Design Scoping review. Methods In March 2022, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Source Nursing, Africa Wide and APA PsychInfo for peer-reviewed literature in English related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, refusal, acceptance and access in SSA. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews to guide evidence gathering and as a template to present the evidence retrieval process. Results In the studies selected for review (n=72), several measurement tools were used to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and refusal. These measurements were willingness and intent to vaccinate from the perspectives of the general population, special population groups such as mothers, students and staff in academic institutions and healthcare workers and uptake as a proxy for measuring assumed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Measurements of access to COVID-19 vaccination were cost and affordability, convenience, distance and time to travel or time waiting for a vaccine and (dis)comfort. Although all studies measured COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance and refusal, relatively few studies (n=16, 22.2%) included explicit measurements of access to COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions Based on the gaps identified in the scoping review, we propose that future research on determinants of COVID-19 vaccination in SSA should further prioritise the inclusion of access-related variables. We recommend the development and use of standardised research tools that can operationalise, measure and disentangle the complex determinants of vaccine uptake in future studies throughout SSA and other low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings.

This article examines the relationships between biomedicine, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and parents’ vaccination decision‐making in Switzerland. Our empirical evidence sheds light on an understudied phenomenon—parents switching from one doctor to another provider (often one offering CAM services) around issues that arise during vaccination consultations. This is important to understand since CAM is used by 25%–50% of the Swiss population and is integrated into the Swiss health‐care system when offered by biomedically trained medical doctors with additional CAM training. Qualitative data gathered from in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with parents (N = 30) and ethnographic observations of vaccination consultations (N = 16 biomedical consultations, N = 18 CAM consultations) demonstrate how there was not always a clear‐cut, direct relationship between (non)vaccination and parents’ use of CAM and/or biomedicine. Borrowing from Hirschman (Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Harvard Univ. Press, 1970), we frame our analysis by using the concepts of exit, voice and loyalty to describe parents’ provider selection and vaccination decision‐making process, although only four families in the sample described switching solely because of vaccination‐related issues. Findings add to vaccine decision‐making literature by describing and analysing the underdiscussed provider‐switching phenomenon and by demonstrating the importance of parents’ experiences of trust, affect and choice in vaccination consultations as they pursue the best health outcomes for their children.