Implementing psychology-based Empathetic Refutational Interview training to support vaccine confident conversations for health workers
Holford, D.; Anderson, E.; Gould, V. C.; Weil, L. G.; Wilson, J.; Ahmed, R.; Karlsson, L. C.; Lewandowsky, S.
Show abstract
ObjectiveIt can be challenging for health workers to have conversations with the public about vaccination and address misinformation without evidence-based training. Our objective was to pilot and evaluate a programme to teach an evidence-based communication approach, the Empathetic Refutational Interview (ERI), developed to help health workers address vaccine misinformation while maintaining trust. Study designThis mixed-methods study evaluated participants skills and confidence in the ERI before and after training and explored the feasibility of participants training others to use the ERI. MethodsTen in-person, two-day workshops were conducted for 106 trainees in London, UK between October 2023 and November 2024. Participants were supported to adapt training content and pass it on (e.g., onward ERI training). Participants completed assessment and feedback questionnaires before and after the workshop and were emailed follow-up questionnaires at one month and three months after the workshop. ResultsWe received 101 before-and-after questionnaire responses, and 42 and 35 responses to the follow-ups. Participants confidence, preparedness, and skills in using the ERI for vaccine conversations improved significantly. In their feedback, participants cited better understanding of patients psychological motivations and the structure provided by the ERI framework as useful elements for their practice. Eighteen participants reported passing on ERI knowledge to colleagues; most onward ERI training featured a shorter version of the content delivered during the workshop. ConclusionsThe training successfully equipped health workers with skills and confidence to approach vaccine conversations. However, few trainees were able to give in-depth ERI training to others without further support.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine receipt at two integrated healthcare systems in New York City: A Cross sectional study of healthcare workers 96%
- Healthcare workers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the UK’s COVID-19 vaccination programme 95%
- “ We don’t routinely check vaccination background in adults” : A national qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to vaccine delivery and uptake in adult migrants through UK primary care 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The social experience of participation in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: Subjects’ motivations, others’ concerns, and insights for vaccine promotion 94%
- Localising Vaccination Services: Qualitative Insights on an Orthodox Jewish Collaboration with Public health during the UK coronavirus Vaccine Programme 94%
- A “step too far” or “perfect sense”? A qualitative study of British adults’ views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 vaccine brand hesitancy and other challenges to vaccination in the Philippines 94%
- Navigating vaccination choices: The intersecting dynamics of institutional trust, belonging and message perception among Congolese migrants in the UK (A reflexive thematic analysis) 94%
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy beliefs in Togo: Findings from two cross-sectional surveys 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.