Opinion

Building trust: Tailored messaging needed to limit vaccine hesitancy

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 Comments
  • David Johnson says:

    I totally agree. Prevention must come before treatment whenever possible, especially in a pandemic where millions have died and more to share the same fate.

  • Shehnaz Pabani says:

    Thoughtful comments, Dr. Alam. Trusted communication(by Imams, Clergy, community workers/leaders) and taking the vaccine to the vulnerable populations would be key to increasing vaccine uptake. For example, in Thorncliffe park, (where I cut my teeth too!) having a vaccination site at a local community centre, so that front line workers/other high risk groups would not need to travel to remote vaccine sights on public transit. Off hours/extended hours of vaccinations will also increase uptake by hourly workers not having to take unpaid leave to access the vaccine.

  • Judy Patterson says:

    Even if ivermectin is proven to be therapeutic (it has not yet, as it is still in the experimental stage), it is a treatment and not prevention. Vaccines are for primary prevention and so you do not contract a disease; once you’ve caught it, there is indeed growing evidence that some people may benefit from ivermectin.

  • Iris says:

    “Experts have taken to social media to quell misinformation and address common concerns about Pfizer’s messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine, performing an important public service in support of robust vaccine uptake. However, some scientific information is being oversimplified to the point that it is misleading. The public’s decision to take a vaccine whose long-term risks are unclear should be a well-informed one. Clear communication is crucial to the process of informed consent and for building public trust in the fight against vaccine hesitancy.”

    https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2021/01/upholding-the-principles-of-informed-consent-in-the-fight-against-vaccine-hesitancy.html

  • Elizabeth says:

    “Concerns centered on efficacy, safety and the speed of vaccine development.” And may I add lack of/or extremely-limited animal testing and no long-term safety trials, especially as these are novelty mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines, granted for emergency use. Those all seem like significant concerns to me about which we don’t yet know the ramifications. Many health care workers are understandably hesitant to rush to be first in line. The likelihood of vaccine injury appears to be high, and discussions of mandatory ‘show-your-vaccine papers’ are alarming, to say the least.

  • John Van Aerde, MD, PhD says:

    Many thanks for your thoughtful suggestions.
    John

  • Judith Wahl says:

    Vaccine Hesitancy could be addressed in part if physicians and nurses assigned to deliver the vaccines engage patients in the necessary discussions to get an informed consent . People are entitled to the info to help them understand how they would benefit form the vaccine and the risks of the vaccination . They also need to know if there are possible side effects, what alternatives there are to these vaccines ( which appear to be none) and what may happen if they don’t get vaccinated. That’s the basic info all health providers and others need to be making available to patients in language and on terms that they can understand.

    I recently heard on a recent broadcast of CBC’s Black Coat White Art of a programme in Quebec where there are vaccination counsellors that can talk to patients about vaccines and answer any of their questions . It appeared from that report that the counsellors were more successful than the physicians in having peiople accept the vaccinations. All the way through that radio programme I thought the real point was being missed — that the physicians were not providing the patients with the info they needed to understand their choice about the vaccination and were not providing the info required to be provided by the physicians to the patients as part of getting an informed consent . This programme was being discussed as ft it was a brilliant step forward when in fact it should have justy highlighted what a poor understanding health practitioners have about their requirement to provide the info necessary to obtain an informed consent . I don’t have any problem if additional people are helping provide patients with information about vaccines if that info is accurate but no matter what info is provided by info sheets , counsellors, videos, the physicians and nurses are still responsible to provide the info required for an informed consent and not just rely that these secondary sources will give the patients the info they need to make an informed choice .

    and yes I am following up with the physician that does White Coat Black Art as I was more than upset about how this counselling programme was presented as a new and wonderful idea and nothing in that programme addressed the requirement so health practitioners providing treatment to get an informed consent which is based on giving patients the information needed to make a choice and to answer their questions and hopefully address their hesitancy to get the vaccination.

    • Ud says:

      Wrong. There are alternatives. In addition to the many drugs in the news this past year another one named Ivermectin has promise! This is a very common antiparasitic which has been used for decades to treat other dna and rna viruses. How come you have never heard of it?? Is it because BigPharma wants to make money on vax and cant make money on this cheap easily accessible drug? Why have Japan, Russia and Mexico and several African countries had success with this drug and we don’t even hear abouy it. How would you feel if someone you loved was dying from COVID and your doctor refused to try this drug because the medical community won’t agree to its use for some reason? Why are therapeutic drugs being vilified? Is it because Bad Orange Man tweets about them? Are we playing medicine or politics?

      Or is it because all the nations that agreed to Pfizer already prepaid billions before the vax even arrived and man how stupid would a PM look if they now said “ooops we could have used a cheaper drug”. Of course we will push this vax we already paid billions for, even if it has side effects or doesn’t fully work (spoiler – even Pfizer says it wont guarantee the vax prevents you fron catching COVID in the community).

      Google some studies on Ivermectin around the world – look up actual studies not cbc news.

  • Laurie Smith says:

    the photo with this article: the subject is vaccines… this tech appears to be taking blood.

Author

Nadia Alam

Contributor

Dr. Nadia Alam enjoys a busy life in Georgetown, Ont., as a mom of four, a writer, a family doctor and anesthetist, the president-elect of the Ontario Medical Association, and candidate for a masters in health economics, policy and management (LSE).