Randomised cluster trial to support informed parental decision-making for the MMR vaccine

Jackson, Cath; Cheater, Francine M.; Harrison, Wendy; Peacock, Rose; Bekker, Hilary; West, Robert; Leese, Brenda
January 2011
BMC Public Health;2011, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p475
Academic Journal
Background: In the UK public concern about the safety of the combined measles, mumps and rubella [MMR] vaccine continues to impact on MMR coverage. Whilst the sharp decline in uptake has begun to level out, first and second dose uptake rates remain short of that required for population immunity. Furthermore, international research consistently shows that some parents lack confidence in making a decision about MMR vaccination for their children. Together, this work suggests that effective interventions are required to support parents to make informed decisions about MMR. This trial assessed the impact of a parent-centred, multi-component intervention (balanced information, group discussion, coaching exercise) on informed parental decision-making for MMR. Methods: This was a two arm, cluster randomised trial. One hundred and forty two UK parents of children eligible for MMR vaccination were recruited from six primary healthcare centres and six childcare organisations. The intervention arm received an MMR information leaflet and participated in the intervention (parent meeting). The control arm received the leaflet only. The primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were actual and intended MMR choice, knowledge, attitude, concern and necessity beliefs about MMR and anxiety. Results: Decisional conflict decreased for both arms to a level where an 'effective' MMR decision could be made one-week (effect estimate = -0.54, p < 0.001) and three-months (effect estimate = -0.60, p < 0.001) postintervention. There was no significant difference between arms (effect estimate = 0.07, p = 0.215). Heightened decisional conflict was evident for parents making the MMR decision for their first child (effect estimate = -0.25, p = 0.003), who were concerned (effect estimate = 0.07, p < 0.001), had less positive attitudes (effect estimate = -0.20, p < 0.001) yet stronger intentions (effect estimate = 0.09, p = 0.006). Significantly more parents in the intervention arm reported vaccinating their child (93% versus 73%, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Whilst both the leaflet and the parent meeting reduced parents' decisional conflict, the parent meeting appeared to enable parents to act upon their decision leading to vaccination uptake.


Related Articles

  • No need for rash action on MMR vaccine. Ainsworth, Claire // New Scientist;03/03/2001, Vol. 169 Issue 2280, p16 

    Reports on the finding that the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) can cause a rash in children. Finding that the rash is a bleeding disorder called idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura; Severity of the condition; Comparison of the effects of the rash to those of the diseases prevented...

  • MMR expert dissenter now supports single vaccines.  // Pulse;8/19/2002, Vol. 62 Issue 32, p7 

    Reports on physician Gordon Bell's support for proposals that would allow patient to have a choice between MMR and single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in Great Britain.

  • Big bang for vaccination. Badenoch, John // BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition);9/24/88, Vol. 297 Issue 6651, p750 

    Introduces the combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella for young children in Great Britain. Effects of rubella on fetuses; Morbidity caused by mumps; Development of comprehensive surveillance program for the assessment of the effectiveness of vaccines; Acceptance for the measle vaccine.

  • Understanding variation in measles-mumps-rubella immunization coverage--a population-based study. Wright, James A.; Polack, Clare // European Journal of Public Health;Apr2006, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p137 

    Coverage of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella combined vaccine (MMR) has declined in recent years in the UK, following adverse publicity about possible links between the vaccine, autism, and Crohn's disease. The objectives of this study were to assess geographical variation in trends in MMR coverage and...

  • Figures show trust in MMR not yet restored.  // Pulse;1/8/2005, Vol. 65 Issue 1, p12 

    Reports on the decrease in the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine uptake in Great Britain.

  • MINDLESS MMR. Mansfield, Peter // Ecologist;Mar2002, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p25 

    Provides information on measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines. Advent of MMR vaccines; Benefits from MMR vaccines; Efficacy of MMR vaccines compared to single vaccines.

  • Another media scare about MMR vaccine hits Britain. Anderson, Pat // BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition);06/12/99, Vol. 318 Issue 7198, p1578 

    Focuses on a study regarding the physiological effect of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Great Britain. Infectious diseases caused by the vaccine; Details on the findings of a clinical trials conducted concerning the use of the vaccine; Concerns raised by physicians in the country.

  • MMR vaccine policy is backed. Bower, Hilary // BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition);03/28/98, Vol. 316 Issue 7136, p955 

    Focuses on the support of an expert group on vaccination with the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine after a claim of disease association with the vaccine. Information on MMR; Examination performed on the vaccine; Comment from chief medical officer Kenneth Calman on the vaccine.

  • Booster shot is ‘crucial’.  // GP: General Practitioner;2/11/2002, p4 

    Examines the adequate immunity of measles, mumps and rubella booster in Great Britain.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics