Effect of oncology provider conversations on patients’ vaccination decision-making: Patient perspectives at a safety-net system.

266 Background: Low immunization rates among adults are associated with worse outcomes, particularly among immunocompromised individuals, such as those diagnosed with a cancer. To better understand vaccination communication and decision-making experiences among adult cancer patients treated at a safety-net system, we conducted structured interviews to: (1) explore patients’ perceptions of their oncology providers’ role in adult immunization, and (2) understand the potential factors that underlie patients’ hesitancy to receive vaccines. Methods: Parkland Health is the safety-net system for Dallas County, providing care for a primarily minority and un-/under-insured population. Cancer patients who had previously deferred or declined immunization participated in either in-person or telephone interviews in their preferred language (English/Spanish), using a structured 8-question interview guide. Questions centered on oncology providers’ role, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine decision-making. Interviews averaged 12 minutes and were recorded for transcription. Aggregated interview responses were coded by question and interpreted through content analysis which noted frequency (i.e., times concept stated) and extensiveness (i.e., repetition across questions). Results: Thirteen patients were interviewed – 7 in English, 6 in Spanish. Patient’s perceived their oncology providers as highly important to their vaccination decision-making as they were: (1) more likely to get a vaccine if it is recommended by their provider (P2: Well, if the doctor hadn’t told me I wouldn’t have gotten vaccinated ; P3: If they didn’t recommend it, I would not get it ; P12: If they recommend it, it's worth looking into or thinking about ), and (2) identified their oncology provider as a preferred means for learning about vaccines (P8: Asking the doctor or the doctor communicating with us patients about a vaccine... in my personal opinion, I would say, go ahead and vaccinate me ). Patient-identified reasons for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (P2: “several people told me that is why we got cancer” ), fear of needles, previous negative experiences, and preference for alternative medicine approaches. Conclusions: Results from this preliminary study suggest that while patients may not initiate vaccination conversations with their oncology providers, they do identify their providers as influential in their decision-making. Oncology providers may not consider immunization as their primary responsibility but can be a primary source for effective vaccine communication in conjunction with the oncology care team. Findings from our patient interviews informed interventions in a quality improvement project to increase immunization uptake among cancer patients at our safety-net system.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2024-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2024.20.10_suppl.266
Primary Topic
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of oncology provider conversations on patients’ vaccination decision-making: Patient perspectives at a safety-net system.

Navid Sadeghi, Brian Bourbeau, Nataly Reed, Umber Dickerson et al.
JCO Oncology Practice
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
article

Effect of oncology provider conversations on patients’ vaccination decision-making: Patient perspectives at a safety-net system.

Navid Sadeghi, Brian Bourbeau, Nataly Reed, Umber Dickerson, Andrea R. Semlow, Iza Delgado
article en

Abstract

266 Background: Low immunization rates among adults are associated with worse outcomes, particularly among immunocompromised individuals, such as those diagnosed with a cancer. To better understand vaccination communication and decision-making experiences among adult cancer patients treated at a safety-net system, we conducted structured interviews to: (1) explore patients’ perceptions of their oncology providers’ role in adult immunization, and (2) understand the potential factors that underlie patients’ hesitancy to receive vaccines. Methods: Parkland Health is the safety-net system for Dallas County, providing care for a primarily minority and un-/under-insured population. Cancer patients who had previously deferred or declined immunization participated in either in-person or telephone interviews in their preferred language (English/Spanish), using a structured 8-question interview guide. Questions centered on oncology providers’ role, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine decision-making. Interviews averaged 12 minutes and were recorded for transcription. Aggregated interview responses were coded by question and interpreted through content analysis which noted frequency (i.e., times concept stated) and extensiveness (i.e., repetition across questions). Results: Thirteen patients were interviewed – 7 in English, 6 in Spanish. Patient’s perceived their oncology providers as highly important to their vaccination decision-making as they were: (1) more likely to get a vaccine if it is recommended by their provider (P2: Well, if the doctor hadn’t told me I wouldn’t have gotten vaccinated ; P3: If they didn’t recommend it, I would not get it ; P12: If they recommend it, it's worth looking into or thinking about ), and (2) identified their oncology provider as a preferred means for learning about vaccines (P8: Asking the doctor or the doctor communicating with us patients about a vaccine... in my personal opinion, I would say, go ahead and vaccinate me ). Patient-identified reasons for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (P2: “several people told me that is why we got cancer” ), fear of needles, previous negative experiences, and preference for alternative medicine approaches. Conclusions: Results from this preliminary study suggest that while patients may not initiate vaccination conversations with their oncology providers, they do identify their providers as influential in their decision-making. Oncology providers may not consider immunization as their primary responsibility but can be a primary source for effective vaccine communication in conjunction with the oncology care team. Findings from our patient interviews informed interventions in a quality improvement project to increase immunization uptake among cancer patients at our safety-net system.

JCO Oncology PracticeVol. 20(10_suppl)
Parkland Health & Hospital System (US), American Society of Clinical Oncology (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.