Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Feb:241:203-211.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.10.033. Epub 2021 Oct 23.

Standardized Vaccine-Hesitant Patients in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Vaccine Communication Training

Shanna M Barton  1 , Aaron W Calhoun  1 , Carrie A Bohnert  2 , Sara M Multerer  1 , Victoria A Statler  1 , Kristina A Bryant  1 , Daniel M Arnold  1 , Heather M Felton  1 , Patricia M Purcell  1 , Matthew D Kinney  1 , John M Parrish-Sprowl  3 , Gary S Marshall  4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Standardized Vaccine-Hesitant Patients in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Vaccine Communication Training

Shanna M Barton et al. J Pediatr. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if training residents in a structured communication method elicits specific behaviors in a laboratory model of interaction with vaccine-hesitant parents.

Study design: Standardized patients portraying vaccine-hesitant parents were used to assess the effectiveness of training in the Announce, Inquire, Mirror, Secure (AIMS) Method for Healthy Conversations. Blinded pediatric residents were pseudorandomized to receive AIMS or control training and underwent pre- and post-training encounters with blinded standardized patients. Encounters were assessed by blinded raters using a novel tool. Participant confidence and standardized patient evaluations of the participants' general communication skills were assessed.

Results: Ratings were available for 27 AIMS and 26 control participants. Statistically significant increases in post-training scores (maximum = 30) were detected in AIMS, but not in control, participants (median, 21.3 [IQR, 19.8-24.8] vs 18.8 [IQR, 16.9-20.9]; P < .001). Elements (maximum score = 6) with significant increases were Inquire (0.67 [IQR, 0-1.76] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P < .001); Mirror (1.33 [IQR, 0 to 2] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.92 to 0]; P < .001) and Secure (0.33 [IQR, 0 to 1.67] vs -0.17 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P = .017). Self-confidence increased equally in both groups. Standardized patients did not detect a difference in communication skills after training and between groups. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the assessment tool were modest.

Conclusions: Standardized patients proved useful in studying the effectiveness of structured communication training, but may have been limited in their ability to perceive a difference between groups owing to the predetermined encounter outcome of vaccine refusal. AIMS training should be studied in real-world scenarios to determine if it impacts vaccine acceptance.

Keywords: standardized patients; structured communication; vaccine hesitancy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types