Abstract
Background
Infants too young to be fully vaccinated are vulnerable to potentially deadly influenza and pertussis infections. The cocooning strategy limits this risk by vaccinating those likely to interact with the infant and mother during this vulnerable time, such as close friends and family members. Distribution of accurate and accessible vaccine information through existing social networks could be an important tool in increasing vaccine confidence and coverage.
Methods
We surveyed 1,095 pregnant women from diverse prenatal care practices in Georgia and Colorado. These women were surveyed through a mobile app to assess vaccine intentions, attitudes, beliefs, norms, and levels of trust, and then presented brief individually-tailored educational videos about maternal and infant vaccines and the cocooning strategy. They were then given the opportunity to refer up to six contacts to enroll in the app and receive similar vaccine education.
Results
Twenty-eight percent of these women referred at least one contact, with an average of 2.67 contacts per referring woman. Most referrals (93%) were partners, parents, siblings, relatives, or close friends. Attitudinal constructs significantly associated with increased likelihood of referring contacts included: intention to receive maternal influenza vaccine, perceived safety of maternal Tdap vaccine, perceived efficacy of maternal influenza vaccine, perceived susceptibility to and severity of influenza during pregnancy, and trust in vaccine information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and academic institutions. Uncertainty about infant vaccine intentions was associated with decreased likelihood of referring contacts.
Conclusions
Pregnant women who valued vaccination and trusted vaccine information from academic institutions were more likely to refer an educational app about vaccines than those who did not. Further research is needed to determine the potential impact of this strategy on vaccine coverage when implemented on a large scale.
Trial Registration
The survey informing this article was part of a randomized controlled trial funded by the National Institutes of Health [clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02898688].
Keywords: Vaccines, Cocooning, App, Referral, Education, Social Network
Introduction
Children too young to be vaccinated against pertussis are at high risk for contracting pertussis disease (commonly known as whooping cough); they also have the highest complication rates (1–4). Almost all pertussis deaths in the United States (US) occur in children less than 6 months of age (1, 2). For influenza, there is no licensed vaccine for infants less than 6 months of age, and this is the group at highest risk for influenza-associated hospitalization and death (5). Influenza and tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines are recommended during pregnancy to protect both the pregnant woman and her unborn infant against these diseases (2, 6–8). Only about half of pregnant women receiving either recommended vaccine in 2018 (9). This leaves many infants vulnerable to potentially deadly influenza and pertussis infections in their early life (4, 5, 8, 10).
Cocooning, the vaccination of close contacts of a newborn, is a strategy to further limit the risk of influenza and pertussis infection among vulnerable infants (11–13). Factors such as high perceived benefits of vaccine, high perceived susceptibility to disease, and low perceived barriers to vaccination have been associated with higher rates of cocooning vaccination (14), illustrating the potential for educational intervention on this topic.
Vaccine decisions, like many other types of decisions, have been shown to be influenced by one’s peers within their social network (15–19), especially among those with vaccine concerns (20). Thus, by changing the vaccine attitudes and beliefs of a pregnant woman’s social network, one may also change the vaccine attitudes and beliefs of that pregnant woman, and vice versa. Only one study so far has analyzed social networks to determine their impact on vaccine decision making in the US (18).
We designed an educational app about vaccines that pregnant women could experience and refer to their close friends and family, with the goal of increasing vaccine coverage among both pregnant women and their close contacts. The main objective of this analysis was to determine which factors were associated with an increased likelihood of pregnant women referring their close contacts to this educational app. A secondary objective was to determine the types of contacts (e.g., partner, parent, sibling, other relative, close friend, casual friend, caregiver, other) most commonly referred and enrolled in the app.
Methods
Study Design
This study was possible due to the existing infrastructure of the P3+ study, a large randomized controlled trial of a three-level prenatal intervention to increase uptake of maternal and infant vaccines [clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02898688]. In P3+, pregnant women entering a geographically and socio-demographically diverse set of prenatal care settings in Georgia (GA) and Colorado (CO) for regularly scheduled appointments between June 2017 and July 2018 were recruited to participate by study staff. Eligibility criteria mandated that participating women must have been between 18 and 50 years old, between 8 and 26 weeks pregnant, and had not yet received Tdap vaccine during their current pregnancy.
As part of the P3+ study, we developed an application (“app”) for pregnant women entitled “MomsTalkShots” that can be used on smartphones, tablets and computers (21). The app was designed to collect survey data on vaccine knowledge, attitudes and beliefs and to deliver educational videos about maternal and infant vaccines and the cocooning strategy, tailored to the individual’s specific vaccine concerns as elicited by their survey responses. The baseline survey was administered to all P3+ participants via tablets in the waiting rooms, and a $20 incentive was provided for survey completion (21). Videos were only given to half of the participants, chosen at random. Videos were designed to present information in a scientifically accurate yet engaging manner with easily understandable language and representations of racially and ethnically diverse populations. This was done so that the app would have broad appeal to a variety of audiences with varying audiences.
All participating women randomized to receive videos were given the opportunity to refer up to 6 of their close friends and family to the app upon conclusion of the videos. Those who referred at least one contact received a $10 gift card. Two-thirds of the referred contacts selected at random were then sent up to 10 emails, each spaced out by at least a week, with a link to the app inviting them to enroll. As in P3+, referred contacts who chose to enroll in the app were incentivized ($20 gift card) to complete a survey and randomized (1:1) to receive individually-tailored educational videos. Enrolled contacts also were offered a small financial incentive ($10 worth of Walgreens Balance Rewards points per vaccine) for receiving influenza and/or Tdap vaccinations at Walgreens.
Data Collection
The baseline P3+ survey included multiple choice questions assessing intention to receive recommended maternal and infant vaccines and number of prior children. In addition, the survey included 58 Likert scale statements assessing latent attitudinal constructs such as: confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy, perceived risk of (susceptibility to and severity of) vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), self-efficacy (an individual’s belief in their capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments) (22), descriptive (what people typically do) and injunctive (what people typically approve or disapprove) social norms (23), perception of knowledge, and trust in information sources. These were chosen after reviewing other relevant behavioral models, theories and scales (15, 24), and each construct was assessed using several survey items. Likert scale response options were strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree; trust and knowledge statements included a “don’t know” option; and trust statements regarding pediatricians and naturopathic/chiropractic doctors included options for “I don’t have a pediatrician yet” and “I don’t see this type of doctor”, respectively. Sociodemographic information including ethnicity and education was collected.
Data Analysis
Responses to questions assessing maternal and infant vaccine intention were dichotomized to represent those who intended to receive maternal influenza vaccine, those who intended to receive maternal Tdap vaccine, and those who intended to receive all infant vaccines on time as recommended (versus those who did not). Likert scale responses were dichotomized to represent those who strongly agreed or agreed versus those who did not.
Likert scale responses were encoded (1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - don’t know, 4 - agree, 5 - strongly agree) and survey questions assessing each of the following attitudinal constructs were combined to create summary scores: confidence in vaccine safety (for the mother), confidence in vaccine safety (for the infant), confidence in vaccine efficacy (influenza), confidence in vaccine efficacy (whooping cough), risk perception (maternal influenza), risk perception (maternal whooping cough), risk perception (infant whooping cough), self-efficacy, social norms, perception of vaccine knowledge, trust in vaccine information (from pediatricians, obstetricians and midwives), trust in vaccine information (from naturopaths and chiropractors), and trust in vaccine information (from federal agencies and academic institutions).
Sociodemographic characteristics, individual survey responses, and construct summary scores were each analyzed as independent variables in simple logistic regressions with a dichotomous variable for having referred contacts versus not having referred contacts as the dependent variable, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated.
Percentages of contacts referred and enrolled in the app by type of relationship to the referrer were calculated. Pearson’s chi-squared test for independence was used to assess differences in enrollment rates by relationship type. All p-values were two-sided, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analysis was performed using Stata/IC 12.1 (STATA Corp., College Station, TX, USA).
Results
Among pregnant women participating in P3+, 1,095 (542 from Colorado and 553 from Georgia) were randomized to receive videos and thus were given the opportunity to refer contacts to the app (Table 1). Forty-eight percent of these women were pregnant for the first time. Of those who provided education information (n=894, 82% of total sample), 227 (25%) had an advanced degree and 389 (44%) had an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. Of those who provided their ethnicity (n=926, 85% of total sample), 569 (61%) identified as white; 158 (17%) identified as black and 115 (12%) as Hispanic or Latino.
Table 1.
Percentage of Pregnant Women who Referred Contacts to Educational App about Vaccines, Stratified by State, Education, Ethnicity and First Child
| Selected Characteristics | Total, N (%) | Referred Contacts, N (%)* | P** |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1,095 | 306 (28) | |
|
| |||
| State | |||
|
| |||
| Colorado | 542 (50) | 157 (29) | 0.46 |
| Georgia | 553 (51) | 149 (27) | |
| total | 1,095 | 306 (28) | |
|
| |||
| Education | |||
|
| |||
| Graduate degree*** | 227 (25) | 82 (36) | 0.03 |
| Undergraduate degree*** | 389 (44) | 107 (28) | |
| No college degree | 278 (31) | 72 (26) | |
| total | 894 | 261 (29) | |
|
| |||
| Ethnicity | |||
|
| |||
| Black or African American | 158 (17) | 39 (25) | 0.15 |
| Hispanic or Latino | 115 (12) | 35 (30) | |
| White | 569 (61) | 158 (28) | |
| Other | 84 (9) | 32 (38) | |
| total | 926 | 264 (29) | |
|
| |||
| First Child | |||
|
| |||
| Yes | 523 (48) | 150 (29) | 0.60 |
| No | 572 (52) | 156 (27) | |
| total | 1,095 | 306 (28) | |
number and percentage in each sociodemographic group who referred contacts to app
P-value for the Pearson chi-squared proportion test at significance level of (α) 5%; bolded if significant
Graduate degree includes Master’s, Doctoral, and Professional degrees; Undergraduate degree includes Bachelor’s and Associate’s degrees
Three hundred and six women (28%) referred at least one contact to the app, with an average of 2.67 contacts per referring woman. Of these women, 39% referred one contact, 22% referred two contacts, 11% referred three contacts, 6% referred four contacts, 3% referred five contacts, and 18% referred the maximum of six contacts (Table 2).
Table 2.
Number of Contacts Referred to Educational App about Vaccines per Pregnant Woman
| Number of Contacts Referred | N (%) |
|---|---|
| 0 | 789 (72) |
| 1+ | 306 (28) |
|
| |
| 1 | 120 (11) |
| 2 | 67 (6) |
| 3 | 34 (3) |
| 4 | 19 (2) |
| 5 | 10 (1) |
| 6 (maximum allowed) | 56 (5) |
|
| |
| total 1,095 (100) | |
A total of 819 contacts were referred (Table 3). Twenty-four percent of referred contacts were listed as parents, 20% as close friends, 19% as partners, 16% as siblings, 14% as other relatives, 2% as casual friends, 2% as caregivers to the infant, and 2% as other.
Table 3.
Contacts Referred to Educational App about Vaccines by Relationship to Pregnant Women Who Referred Them
| Relationship | Referred, N (%) |
|---|---|
| Partner | 154 (19) |
| Parent | 200 (24) |
| Sibling | 131 (16) |
| Other Relative | 118 (14) |
| Close Friend | 162 (20) |
| Casual Friend | 19 (2) |
| Caregiver | 14 (2) |
| Other | 15 (2) |
| Unknown | 6 (1) |
|
| |
| total | 819 (100) |
Several statistically significant associations were found between pregnant women who referred contacts and survey items assessing their vaccine intentions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and trust (Table 4). Women who intended to receive maternal influenza vaccine were more likely to refer contacts to the app (odds ratio: 1.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.81), and women who were unsure about their infant vaccine intentions were less likely to refer contacts to the app (OR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.27–0.83). Women were more likely to refer contacts to the app if they were confident in the safety of maternal Tdap vaccine (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.13–2.38) and the efficacy of maternal influenza vaccine (OR: 1.90; 95%CI: 1.21–2.98), had high perceived susceptibility to (OR: 1.62; 95%CI: 1.10–2.40) and severity of (OR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.28–3.73) influenza during pregnancy, and reported trust in maternal vaccine information from academic institutions (OR: 1.56; 95%CI: 1.09–2.25) as well as infant vaccine information from the CDC (OR: 1.44; 95%CI: 1.02–2.05) and academic institutions (OR: 1.85; 95%CI: 1.27–2.71). Attitudinal constructs found to be significantly associated with referral of contacts were: confidence in vaccine safety for the mother (OR: 1.10; 95%CI: 1.03–1.17), perceived risk of maternal influenza (OR: 1.15; 95%CI: 1.06–1.26), confidence in efficacy of influenza (OR: 1.14; 95%CI: 1.03–1.26) and whooping cough (OR: 1.08; 95%CI: 1.01–1.15) vaccines, and trust in vaccine information from federal agencies and academic institutions (OR: 1.07; 95%CI: 1.03–1.12). There were no statistically significant associations between likelihood of referring contacts to the app and ethnicity, education, state, or having prior children.
Table 4.
Odds Ratios for Survey Items and Attitudinal Constructs Associated with Pregnant Women Referring Contacts to Educational App about Vaccines
| Survey Items | Contacts Referred, OR (95%CI)* |
|---|---|
| Vaccine Intentions ** | |
| Intention to Receive Maternal Influenza Vaccine | 1.37 (1.04, 1.81) |
| Uncertain Infant Vaccine Intentions | 0.47 (0.27, 0.83) |
|
| |
| Individual Survey Statements - Agreed or Strongly Agreed ** | |
| Confidence in Vaccine Safety | |
| I am confident that getting the whooping cough vaccine during my pregnancy is safe for me. | 1.64 (1.13, 2.38) |
| Other Vaccine Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs | |
| I worry that I could get the flu while I am pregnant. | 1.62 (1.10, 2.40) |
| The flu is more dangerous for pregnant women than for women who are not pregnant. | 2.19 (1.28, 3.73) |
| Getting the flu vaccine will reduce my risk of getting the flu during my pregnancy. | |
| Getting the flu vaccine will reduce my risk of getting the flu during my pregnancy. | 1.90 (1.21, 2.98) |
| I trust the information provided by federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about vaccines for babies after birth. | 1.44 (1.02, 2.05) |
| I trust the information provided by scientists and doctors at universities and academic institutions about vaccines during pregnancy. | 1.56 (1.09, 2.25) |
| I trust the information provided by scientists and doctors at universities and academic institutions about vaccines for babies after birth. | 1.85 (1.27, 2.71) |
|
| |
| Attitudinal Constructs - Summary Scores *** | |
| Confidence in vaccine safety (for the mother) | 1.10 (1.03–1.17) |
| Confidence in vaccine safety (for the infant) | 1.03 (0.98–1.09) |
| Confidence in vaccine efficacy (influenza) | 1.14 (1.03–1.26) |
| Confidence in vaccine efficacy (whooping cough) | 1.08 (1.01–1.15) |
| Perceived risk (maternal influenza) | 1.15 (1.06–1.26) |
| Perceived risk (maternal whooping cough) | 0.96 (0.85–1.08) |
| Perceived risk (infant whooping cough) | 1.02 (0.96–1.08) |
| Self-efficacy | 1.03 (0.87–1.22) |
| Pro-vaccine social norms | 1.04 (1.00–1.09) |
| Perception of vaccine knowledge | 1.06 (0.99–1.14) |
| Trust in vaccine information (from obstetricians and pediatricians****) | 1.02 (0.98–1.05) |
| Trust in vaccine information (from naturopaths and chiropractors****) | 1.07 (1.03–1.12) |
Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) for referring contacts to app
Survey items only listed if statistically significantly associated with referring contacts to app
Construct summary scores all listed, bolded if significant
removed those who stated they hadn’t yet seen this type of provider from this analysis
Four hundred eighty-five (59%) of the contacts referred were randomly selected to be invited by email to join the study and enroll in the app (Table 5). Of these, 158 enrolled in the app (33% response rate). No statistically significant difference in enrollment rates by type of relationship to the referring pregnant woman was found (p=0.56).
Table 5.
Contacts Who Chose to Enroll in Educational App about Vaccines by Relationship to Pregnant Women Who Referred Them**
| Relationship | Enrolled, N (%) | Not Enrolled, N (%) | Total* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partner | 34 (39) | 54 (61) | 88 |
| Parent | 31 (29) | 77 (71) | 108 |
| Sibling | 19 (25) | 57 (75) | 76 |
| Other Relative | 25 (33) | 50 (67) | 75 |
| Close Friend | 39 (38) | 64 (62) | 103 |
| Casual Friend | 4 (33) | 8 (67) | 12 |
| Caregiver | 3 (38) | 5 (63) | 8 |
| Other | 2 (18) | 9 (82) | 11 |
| Unknown | 1 (25) | 3 (75) | 4 |
|
| |||
| total* | 158 (33) | 327 (67) | 485 |
Only 485 of 819 referred contacts (59%) invited to enroll
Pearson chi-squared (8) = 6.76 ; p-value = 0.56
Discussion
Pregnant women were more likely to refer their friends and family to an educational app about vaccines if they were confident in the safety and efficacy of maternal vaccines, perceived risk of influenza during pregnancy, and trusted vaccine information from federal agencies and academic institutions.
The vast majority of contacts referred to an educational app about vaccines by pregnant women were their partners, parents, siblings, relatives, or close friends. Very few users referred their casual friends or other caregivers for the infant. This is not surprising; women may be more comfortable referring close friends and family than caregivers with whom they do not have the same personal relationship. However, from a public health perspective, caregivers would be an ideal target for cocooning vaccinations, and ways to increase their inclusion in referral strategies such as this should be explored. No difference was seen in the likelihood of the referred contact enrolling in the app based on the type of relationship with the referring pregnant woman.
The positive association found between referring contacts to the app and trust in vaccine information from academic institutions is logical, as the app was clearly labeled as a product of the three universities collaborating on this study (Emory University, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health). Previous vaccine-related studies have similarly identified institutional trust is strongly correlated with immunization intent, vaccine trial participation, and reported vaccine receipt (19, 25, 26).
The significant association of confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy and perceived risk of VPDs with contact referral suggests that a perceived lack of benefit of vaccination may decrease desire to share an educational app about vaccines with friends and family, which is consistent with a previous study (14). Perceived pro-vaccine attitudes of women’s friends and family was positively yet non-significantly (P = .06) associated with referring them to an educational app about vaccines. Social norms and the influences of others have been previously linked to maternal influenza vaccine receipt in similar clinical studies involving message framing (27–29). Women may be more comfortable sharing information with their family and friends that they knew would resonate with their pre-existing beliefs; or perhaps that some were hesitant to share information they thought would be contradictory to their family and friends’ pre-existing beliefs. This would align with existing research on the “echo chamber” effect on online spread of vaccine information (30), and may limit the ability of this referral strategy to decrease vaccine hesitancy if most referred contacts are already confident in vaccines. Even if true, the current strategy could still have an impact on vaccine coverage through the reinforcement of the importance of vaccination to an audience predisposed to agree with this message. However, to make the largest possible impact on vaccine confidence and uptake, effective methods for bypassing the echo chamber effect would need to be developed and confirmed through future research.
Women with uncertain infant vaccine intentions were less likely to refer contacts to the app than those who had already made up their mind, perhaps implying limited utility of this strategy in helping uncertain women formulate positive infant vaccine intentions by educating their social network. However, no statistically significant effect was seen for women with uncertain maternal vaccine intentions, for which much greater frequency of uncertainty existed.
The ethnicity, education and state of residence (CO vs GA) of the pregnant women using the MomsTalkShots app did not appear to impact their likelihood of referring contacts, nor did having prior children. These data may indicate the broad appeal of this app and referral strategy to the general population regardless of ethnicity or education level.
This study has several limitations. First, these data are not nationally generalizable. This study was embedded into an existing study analyzing a comprehensive intervention to increase vaccination among pregnant women; the pregnant women who chose to enroll in the preexisting trial and were available to participate in this study may be different than those who did not participate in the study and therefore pregnant women in general. In addition, the income level of pregnant women participating in this study was not collected, so we are unable to properly control for this in our analysis. Because pregnant women were offered a $10 gift card as an incentive for referring contacts to the app, their primary motivation may have been to do so to receive financial incentive, instead of the factors we measured and analyzed. However, somewhat reassuring is that having at least a college degree was not statistically significantly associated with referring contacts to the app, as education is generally associated with income status (31). Since vaccine intentions were assessed before the videos but referral was available after the videos, any short-term effect of the videos on the decision to refer contacts was not captured by this analysis. Whether a referred contact enrolled in the app or not may have been impacted by email habits and spam filters, which may explain why no statistically significant difference was seen in likelihood of enrolling in the app by type of relationship with the referring pregnant woman.
As providing financial incentives for referring contacts would likely be impractical on a large scale, further research into the impact and sustainability of this type of app referral strategy without incentives is needed. Qualitative research on the specific reasons for referring and not referring such apps would complement quantitative research such as this. Further research is also needed to assess whether vaccination attitudes, intentions and uptake are impacted among referred contacts, and whether this in turn has any effect on the referring pregnant woman. If successful, such a strategy could increase vaccine confidence and coverage for very little cost, by spreading accurate, individually tailored vaccine information through existing social networks of pregnant women. This app referral strategy could also be refined for populations other than pregnant women, to widen its potential impact on vaccine coverage and disease prevention.
Conclusion
Pregnant women who valued vaccination and trusted vaccine information from academic institutions were more likely to refer an educational app about vaccines to their close friends and family than those who did not. Further research is needed to determine the potential impact of this app referral strategy on vaccine coverage when implemented on a large scale.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [grant number R01AI110482]. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. This work was also supported by Walgreens Corporation. We would like to thank everyone who contributed to survey design and/or participant recruitment in this study.
M Dudley received some support from Walgreens. A Chamberlain received paid consultancy with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding provider-to-patient communications.
D Salmon received consulting and/or research support form Merck, Walgreens and Pfizer.
Footnotes
Declaration of interests
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
R Limaye, S Omer, S O’Leary, M Ellingson, C Spina, S Brewer, R Bednarczyk, F Malik, P Frew have no conflicts and report no financial disclosures.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.ACOG Committee Opinion No. 566: Update on immunization and pregnancy: tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccination. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121(6):1411–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Updated recommendations for use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) in pregnant women--Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013;62(7):131–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Singh M, Lingappan K. Whooping cough: the current scene. Chest 2006;130(5):1547–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zhang L, Prietsch SO, Axelsson I, Halperin SA. Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(9):Cd001478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, Uyeki TM. Effects of influenza on pregnant women and infants. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2012;207(3):S3–S8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Fortner KB, Kuller JA, Rhee EJ, Edwards KM. Influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccinations during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2012;67(4):251–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Updated recommendations for use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) in pregnant women and persons who have or anticipate having close contact with an infant aged <12 months --- Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60(41):1424–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Broder KR, Walter EB, Bresee JS, Fry AM, et al. Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2017–18 Influenza Season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2017;66(2):1–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kahn KE, Black CL, Ding H, Williams WW, Lu PJ, Fiebelkorn AP, et al. Influenza and Tdap Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women - United States, April 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67(38):1055–1059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Washington D.C.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Forsyth K, Plotkin S, Tan T, Wirsing von Konig CH. Strategies to decrease pertussis transmission to infants. Pediatrics 2015;135(6):e1475–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Swamy GK, Wheeler SM. Neonatal pertussis, cocooning and maternal immunization. Expert Rev Vaccines 2014;13(9):1107–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Moriarty LF, Omer SB. Infants and the seasonal influenza vaccine. A global perspective on safety, effectiveness, and alternate forms of protection. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2014;10(9):2721–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.O’Leary ST, Pyrzanowski J, Brewer SE, Barnard J, Beaty B, Donnelly M, et al. Influenza and Pertussis Vaccination Among Pregnant Women and Their Infants’ Close Contacts: Reported Practices and Attitudes. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2015;34(11):1244–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gorman JR, Brewer NT, Wang JB, Chambers CD. Theory-based predictors of influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Vaccine 2012;31(1):213–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Cassell JA, Leach M, Poltorak MS, Mercer CH, Iversen A, Fairhead JR. Is the cultural context of MMR rejection a key to an effective public health discourse? Public Health 2006;120(9):783–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Flynn M, Ogden J. Predicting uptake of MMR vaccination: a prospective questionnaire study. Br J Gen Pract 2004;54(504):526–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Brunson EK. The impact of social networks on parents’ vaccination decisions. Pediatrics 2013;131(5):e1397–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chung Y, Schamel J, Fisher A, Frew PM. Influences on Immunization Decision-Making among US Parents of Young Children. Matern Child Health J 2017;21(12):2178–2187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wheeler M, Buttenheim AM. Parental vaccine concerns, information source, and choice of alternative immunization schedules. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2013;9(8):1782–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Salmon DA, Limaye RJ, Dudley MZ, Oloko OK, Church-Balin C, Ellingson MK, et al. MomsTalkShots: An individually tailored educational application for maternal and infant vaccines. Vaccine 2019;37(43):6478–6485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bandura A Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 1977;84(2):191–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cialdini RB. Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2003;12(4):105–109. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Opel DJ, Mangione-Smith R, Taylor JA, Korfiatis C, Wiese C, Catz S, et al. Development of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents: the parent attitudes about childhood vaccines survey. Hum Vaccin 2011;7(4):419–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Frew PM, Kriss JL, Chamberlain AT, Malik F, Chung Y, Cortes M, et al. A randomized trial of maternal influenza immunization decision-making: A test of persuasive messaging models. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2016;12(8):1989–1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Frew PM, Lutz CS. Interventions to increase pediatric vaccine uptake: An overview of recent findings. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2017;13(11):2503–2511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Frew PM, Owens LE, Saint-Victor DS, Benedict S, Zhang S, Omer SB. Factors associated with maternal influenza immunization decision-making. Evidence of immunization history and message framing effects. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2014;10(9):2576–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Frew PM, Saint-Victor DS, Isaacs MB, Kim S, Swamy GK, Sheffield JS, et al. Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59 Suppl 7:S400–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Frew PM, Saint-Victor DS, Owens LE, Omer SB. Socioecological and message framing factors influencing maternal influenza immunization among minority women. Vaccine 2014;32(15):1736–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Schmidt AL, Zollo F, Scala A, Betsch C, Quattrociocchi W. Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook. Vaccine 2018;36(25):3606–3612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wolla S, Sullivan J. Education, Income, and Wealth. Page One Economics Newsletter 2017:1–1. [Google Scholar]