Qualitative analysis of reflective writing examines medical student learning about vaccine hesitancy

• Published in: Asia Pacific Scholar (Online) Vol. 8; no. 2; pp. 36 - 46
• Main Authors: Jenkins, Marina C., Paul, Caroline R., Chheda, Shobhina, Hanson, Janice L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Singapore National University of Singapore, Centre for Medical Education (CenMed) 01.04.2023; National University of Singapore
• Subjects: Bias; Communication; COVID-19 vaccines; Curricula; Disease control; Education; Essays; False information; Health disparities; Learning; Medical education; Medical students; mistrust; Pandemics; Patient-centered care; Patients; Physicians; Public health; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative research; reflective writing; Student behavior; Students; vaccine hesitancy; Vaccines
• ISSN: 2424-9335; 2424-9270
• DOI: 10.29060/TAPS.2023-8-2/OA2855

Introduction: Increases in vaccine hesitancy continue to threaten the landscape of public health. Literature provides recommendations for vaccine communication and highlights the importance of patient trust, yet few studies have examined medical student perspectives on vaccine hesitancy in clinical settings. Therefore, we aimed to explore medical student experiences encountering vaccine hesitancy, mistrust, and personal biases, with the goal of informing medical student education. Methods: A health disparities course including simulated clinical scenarios required students to complete a written reflection. We sorted reflections written in 2014-2016 to identify common topics and used inductive thematic analysis to identify themes relevant to vaccine hesitancy by group consensus. Results: Our sample included 84 de-identified essays sorted into three non-exclusive topics: vaccine hesitancy (n=42), mistrust (n=34), and personal bias (n=39). We identified four themes within medical students’ reflections: 1) Building a Relationship, including emphasis on patient-centred approaches; 2) Preparedness and Need to Prepare for Future Encounters, including highlighting gaps in medical education; 3) Reactions to Encountering Hesitant Patients, including frustration; 4) Insights for Providing Information and Developing a Plan with Hesitant Patients, including approaches to presenting knowledge. Conclusion: Reflections in the context of simulated encounters and discussion are useful in students identifying their preparedness for vaccine discussion with patients. Student reflections can assist educators in identifying missing educational frameworks for particular scenarios such as vaccine hesitancy. Without a structured framework regarding addressing vaccine hesitancy, students draw upon other skills that may contradict recommended practices.