METHODS: A qualitative study design involving individual both face-to-face and online in-depth interview was used. The topic guide was developed from the Health Belief Model theoretical framework. Seven face-to-face and seven online interviews were conducted with parents in the Klang Valley (an urban area) who had refused childhood vaccination. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyze the data. Data was collected until data saturation was reached.
RESULTS: Findings were summarized into two main categories: Personal Health Beliefs and Vaccine Related Concerns. Six personal health beliefs were identified: lack of confidence in modern medicine and health care personnel, pharmaceutical conspiracy to sell medicines, preference to a natural approach to health, personal instincts, religious beliefs and having a partner with similar beliefs. Four main vaccine-related concerns were identified: negative effects and content concerns, doubts of necessity and lack of information and knowledge regarding vaccines. Parents recommended that more empathy from healthcare professionals and evidence on safety and content purity would help them reconsider vaccination.
CONCLUSION: Parents had multiple reasons for refusing childhood vaccinations but felt that communication and empathy from healthcare professionals was lacking. Besides individual consultations with parents, addressing these concerns at multiple levels in the health care system and society may help to increase the uptake of childhood vaccinations in the future.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28-67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, 'treatment-specific values', 'life goals and philosophies', and 'personal and social background', emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients' decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients' priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.