Papers by Melissa Mueller
This report describes data collected from Albertan families on the COVID-19 Impact Survey impleme... more This report describes data collected from Albertan families on the COVID-19 Impact Survey implemented in May 2020, which built on a unique collaboration across two longitudinal cohorts in Alberta: The All Our Families study (AOF) and the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study (APrON). Our objectives were as follows: (1) Describe household infections of COVID-19 in Alberta among families with school-aged children; (2) Describe urban Albertan family experiences of the pandemic within the first 3-4 months of the outbreak across the areas of financial impact, maternal mental health and well-being, school and daily life, and relationships in the home; and (3) Describe associations among key predictor variables (e.g., financial impact) and outcomes (e.g., maternal anxiety, concern for child's well-being). Study Sample: AOF and APrON Cohort participants reflect families parenting at least one child in between the ages of 8 and 12. While the respondents represent a broad range o...
BMC Public Health, 2019
Background: Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is cr... more Background: Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is critical for designing vaccination campaigns and informing other interventions to increase vaccination uptake in Canada. The objective of this study was to understand maternal vaccination decision making for children. Methods: Mothers participating in a longitudinal community-based pregnancy cohort, the All Our Babies study in Calgary, Alberta, completed open-ended survey questions providing explanations for the vaccination status of their child by 24 months postpartum. Qualitative responses were linked to administrative vaccination records to examine survey responses and recorded child vaccination status. Results: There were 1560 open-ended responses available; 89% (n = 1391) provided explanations for vaccinating their children, 5% (n = 79) provided explanations for not vaccinating/delaying, and 6% (n = 90) provided explanations for both. Themes were similar for those vaccinating and not vaccinating/delaying; however, interpretations were different. Two broad themes were identified: Sources of influence and Deliberative Processes. Sources of influence on decision making included personal, family, and external experiences. Deliberative Processes included risk, research, effectiveness, and balancing risks/benefits. Under Deliberative Processes, responsibility was a category for those vaccinating; while choice, instrumental/practical, and health issues were categories for those not vaccinating/delaying. Mothers' levels of conviction and motivation provided a Context for understanding their decision making perspectives. Conclusions: Vaccination decision making is complex and impacted by many factors that are similar but contribute to different decisions depending on mothers' perspectives. The results of this study indicate the need to examine new intervention approaches to increase uptake that recognize and address feelings of pressure and parental commitment to choice.
BMC Public Health, 2019
Background: Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is cr... more Background: Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is critical for designing vaccination campaigns and informing other interventions to increase vaccination uptake in Canada. The objective of this study was to understand maternal vaccination decision making for children. Methods: Mothers participating in a longitudinal community-based pregnancy cohort, the All Our Babies study in Calgary, Alberta, completed open-ended survey questions providing explanations for the vaccination status of their child by 24 months postpartum. Qualitative responses were linked to administrative vaccination records to examine survey responses and recorded child vaccination status. Results: There were 1560 open-ended responses available; 89% (n = 1391) provided explanations for vaccinating their children, 5% (n = 79) provided explanations for not vaccinating/delaying, and 6% (n = 90) provided explanations for both. Themes were similar for those vaccinating and not vaccinating/delaying; however, interpretations were different. Two broad themes were identified: Sources of influence and Deliberative Processes. Sources of influence on decision making included personal, family, and external experiences. Deliberative Processes included risk, research, effectiveness, and balancing risks/benefits. Under Deliberative Processes, responsibility was a category for those vaccinating; while choice, instrumental/practical, and health issues were categories for those not vaccinating/delaying. Mothers' levels of conviction and motivation provided a Context for understanding their decision making perspectives. Conclusions: Vaccination decision making is complex and impacted by many factors that are similar but contribute to different decisions depending on mothers' perspectives. The results of this study indicate the need to examine new intervention approaches to increase uptake that recognize and address feelings of pressure and parental commitment to choice.
Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, Jan 9, 2017
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of preconception health interve... more The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of preconception health interventions, delivered to individuals of reproductive age in public health and community settings, on reproductive, maternal, and child health outcomes. A search of Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus, Gender Studies Database, and SocINDEX from July 1999 through July 2016 was performed. We included studies that reported original data, used an interventional study design, included reproductive-aged women or men, were written in English, and were published in peer-reviewed journals. Two reviewers independently used standardized instruments for data extraction and quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was performed. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental, pre-post, and time-series designs. Most studies were conducted in the United States; all but one study included only women. Interventions were mainly...
Vaccine, 2021
OBJECTIVES Childhood immunization coverage rates are known to be disproportionate according to po... more OBJECTIVES Childhood immunization coverage rates are known to be disproportionate according to population's socioeconomic status (SES). This systematic review examined and appraised quality of interventions deemed effective to increase routine childhood immunization uptake in low SES populations in developed countries. METHODS A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, EBMR, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Health STAR. We systematically searched and critically appraised articles published between January 1990 and December 2019 using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment tool. This systematic review provides a synthesis of the available evidence for childhood immunization interventions deemed effective for low SES parents or families of children ≤ 5 years of age. SYNTHESIS The search yielded 3317 records, of which 2975 studies met the inclusion criteria. From the 100 relevant studies, a total of 40 were included. The majority of effective and strongly rated studies synthesized consisted of multi-component interventions. Such interventions addressed access, community-based mobilization, outreach, appointment reminders, education, clinical tracking and incentives, and were language and health literacy appropriate to support low SES parents. Improving access to low SES parents was deemed effective in the vast majority of strongly rated studies. Incorrect contact information of low SES parents due to increased social mobility (i.e. household moves) rendered reminders ineffective, and therefore, updating contact information should be pursued proactively by front-line healthcare providers. In addition, plain language communication with low SES parents regarding immunization was deemed effective in improving immunization uptake. CONCLUSION Comprehensive multi-component interventions including improved access, appointment reminders, education and precision health communication are effective for addressing health inequities in immunization coverage amongst marginalized populations. Most low SES parents still believe that the benefits of immunization outweigh the risks.
Uploads
Papers by Melissa Mueller