Parental Vaccine Refusal: What the Evidence Shows About Effective Clinician Responses
Synthesising 11 studies — including RCTs, observational research, and the 2024 AAP clinical report — on communication strategies that address parental vaccine refusal and hesitancy in pediatric practice, through 2026
This is an original evidence synthesis. See References for source studies.
One-Minute Takeaway
One-Minute Takeaway
- Addressing parental vaccine refusal with a presumptive communication format — where clinicians state vaccines are due rather than asking whether parents want them — is associated with significantly higher acceptance rates, including among parents with negative vaccine attitudes (adjusted OR 0.04 for acceptance with participatory versus presumptive; Opel 2013, 2015, 2018).
- Motivational interviewing (MI) applied after initial resistance is supported by multiple studies, including an RCT showing that a postpartum MI-based intervention increased vaccine coverage and reduced hesitancy at three and six months (Gagneur 2019), and the 2024 AAP clinical report formally endorses this tiered approach.
- A 2024 randomised trial found that peer educators trained in MI significantly increased vaccine uptake in communities with high deferral rates (Soren 2024), suggesting that non-physician counsellors may extend the reach of evidence-based communication strategies.
- Evidence-based educational interventions alone — such as information sheets or fact-based corrections — have not consistently reduced parental vaccine refusal and may paradoxically entrench hesitancy in some subgroups; no single intervention has demonstrated effectiveness across all populations.
Why This Topic Matters
Parental vaccine refusal is not a fringe phenomenon — it is a growing clinical reality. Between 10% and 30% of parents in the United States report delaying or declining at least one recommended childhood vaccine, and nonmedical exemption rates hit a historic high of 3.0% in the 2022–2023 school year. The practical consequences are visible in real-time: measles cases surged more than 17-fold in the first quarter of 2024 compared to the same period in 2020–2023, driven by gaps in coverage that cluster geographically and leave entire communities vulnerable.
For pediatricians and family physicians, the vaccine conversation has become one of the most challenging and time-pressured aspects of well-child care. Parents arrive influenced by social media misinformation, personal networks, and concerns about safety that often predate the clinical encounter. Clinicians, meanwhile, report limited training in how to respond when parents resist. The 2024 AAP clinical report on vaccine communication addresses this gap directly, and a growing body of research now offers specific, testable communication strategies — moving the field beyond generic advice to communicate better.
What Evidence Was Reviewed
This synthesis draws on 11 key publications from 2013 to 2025, including the 2024 AAP clinical report, observational studies of videotaped clinical encounters, prospective cohort studies, cluster randomised trials, individual-level RCTs, and systematic reviews. The studies collectively span thousands of clinical encounters and address both how clinicians should initiate the vaccine conversation and what to do when parents push back.
| Study | Design | n | Population | Key Finding | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'Leary et al. 2024 (AAP Clinical Report) | Clinical report (evidence-based review) | NR | Pediatric clinicians, U.S. | Endorses presumptive format + MI as tiered strategy; provides evidence-based framework | High |
| Opel et al. 2013 | Cross-sectional observational (videotaped encounters) | 111 | Parent-provider vaccine discussions, infants 1–19 months | Participatory format: aOR 17.5 for parental resistance vs. presumptive | High |
| Opel et al. 2015 | Cross-sectional observational (same videotaped cohort) | 111 | Same cohort as Opel 2013 | Participatory format: aOR 0.04 for vaccine acceptance vs. presumptive | High |
| Opel et al. 2018 | Longitudinal prospective cohort | 73 | Vaccine-hesitant parents, 2–6 month visits | Repeated presumptive format associated with 10.1% fewer underimmunised days | Moderate |
| O'Leary et al. 2023 (PIVOT with MI) | Cluster RCT (24 practices) | NR | Pediatric practices, Colorado & Washington | Tested combined presumptive + MI strategy; curriculum development and perceived usefulness reported | Moderate |
| Gagneur et al. 2019 (PromoVac) | Multi-centre pre-post RCT-nested | 1419 | Postpartum mothers, Quebec maternity wards | MI-based intervention reduced hesitancy and increased intention to vaccinate | High |
| Gagneur et al. 2024 | Narrative review with evidence synthesis | NR | Healthcare providers globally | MI is one of the most effective strategies for reducing vaccine hesitancy; training HCPs is critical | Moderate |
| Soren et al. 2024 | Randomised controlled trial | 144 | Parents in vaccine-deferring communities, New York | MI-trained peer educators significantly increased vaccine uptake at 90 days | High |
| Holford et al. 2025 | Mixed-methods field test (3-arm) | 334 | Vaccine-hesitant patients, Romanian GPs | Both empathetic refutational interviewing and MI improved attitudes; MI increased appointment scheduling | Moderate |
| Kaufman et al. 2018 (Cochrane) | Cochrane systematic review | NR | Parents of young children | Low- to moderate-certainty evidence for educational interventions; limited evidence for hesitancy specifically | High |
| Abenova et al. 2024 | Systematic review & meta-analysis | NR | Parents of children 0–6 years, worldwide | Synthesised global vaccine hesitancy rates; heterogeneity in definitions complicates comparison | Moderate |
Key Findings in Parental Vaccine Refusal Communication
How the Conversation Starts Matters: Presumptive vs. Participatory Formats
The most consistent finding across the evidence base is that how a clinician opens the vaccine conversation significantly predicts whether a parent accepts or refuses. In a series of studies by Opel and colleagues, provider-parent vaccine discussions were videotaped and systematically coded for communication format. Presumptive formats — closed-ended statements such as "Sara is due for three vaccines today" — were used by approximately 74% of providers and were associated with markedly higher acceptance. Participatory formats — open-ended questions such as "How do you feel about vaccines today?" — were associated with dramatically higher parental resistance, with an adjusted odds ratio of 17.5 for resistance compared to the presumptive format.
A follow-up analysis of the same videotaped encounters found that the participatory format was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of just 0.04 for parental acceptance of all recommended vaccines at the visit's end, compared to the presumptive approach. The longitudinal cohort study extended this finding over time: among vaccine-hesitant parents specifically, children whose providers used a participatory format were 10.1% more days underimmunised over the study period — equivalent to approximately 98 additional days of incomplete vaccination across six recommended antigens. These findings have been replicated conceptually in an RCT of HPV vaccine communication, where presumptive-language training was associated with a 5.4 percentage point increase in series initiation.
When Parents Resist: Motivational Interviewing as Second-Line Strategy
While the presumptive format reduces the frequency of resistance, it does not eliminate it — approximately 26% of parents still voice hesitancy even after a presumptive initiation. This is where motivational interviewing (MI) enters the evidence-based framework. MI is a patient-centred communication approach that explores ambivalence, expresses empathy, and supports autonomy while guiding parents toward informed vaccine acceptance.
The PromoVac study by Gagneur and colleagues — a multi-centre pre-post design with an RCT-nested component conducted in Quebec maternity wards — demonstrated that a single MI-based intervention delivered postpartum reduced vaccine hesitancy scores and increased both intention to vaccinate and observed vaccine coverage at follow-up. Subsequent work has confirmed MI's relevance across settings. A 2024 RCT by Soren and colleagues tested peer educators trained in MI who provided counselling to parents in predominantly Hasidic Jewish communities in New York — an area with high rates of vaccine deferral. Parents who received the MI-based peer intervention were significantly more likely to have their child receive at least one vaccine dose within 90 days of enrolment, compared to those receiving routine care alone.
A 2025 three-arm field test in Romania compared MI, empathetic refutational interviewing (ERI), and untrained usual care among general practitioners counselling 334 vaccine-hesitant patients. Both MI and ERI produced larger improvements in vaccine attitudes and willingness to vaccinate than the control group. The MI group showed a greater proportion of patients who scheduled vaccination appointments, while the ERI group showed larger gains in positive attitudes — suggesting the two approaches may have complementary strengths.
Motivational interviewing in the vaccine context rests on four foundational skills, often abbreviated as OARS: Open-ended questions ("What concerns do you have about today's vaccines?"), Affirmations ("I can see you're putting a lot of thought into this decision"), Reflective listening ("It sounds like the number of injections at one visit worries you"), and Summaries that collect the parent's concerns and the clinician's responses before revisiting the recommendation.
The goal is not to argue or persuade through information overload, but to elicit the parent's own reasons for considering vaccination — a concept known as "change talk." When a parent expresses any motivation toward vaccination ("I do want her protected"), the clinician reinforces and builds on that statement. MI explicitly respects parental autonomy: if the parent remains firmly opposed after a thorough conversation, the clinician documents the refusal and leaves the door open for future visits. This approach is associated with preserved therapeutic alliance and higher rates of delayed acceptance compared to confrontational approaches.
The PIVOT with MI (Presumptively Initiating Vaccines and Optimising Talk with Motivational Interviewing) study represents the most rigorous test of the combined tiered approach. This cluster randomised trial across 24 pediatric practices in Colorado and Washington tests whether training clinicians to use the presumptive format as first-line, followed by MI when parents resist, improves child immunisation status compared to usual care.
The curriculum includes an online module, an in-person interactive training session with role-play and coaching, provider reference materials, and booster sessions. Early data on the curriculum's development and perceived usefulness have been published, with clinicians reporting the training as practical and time-efficient. Full trial results, which will measure actual immunisation status as the primary outcome, are pending and expected to provide definitive evidence on the combined approach.
A Cochrane systematic review of face-to-face interventions for educating parents about childhood vaccination found only low- to moderate-certainty evidence that educational approaches increase uptake. Multiple studies have documented a troubling pattern: factual information about vaccine safety, when delivered to strongly hesitant parents, can paradoxically reinforce refusal — a phenomenon attributed to psychological reactance and confirmation bias. Parents who feel lectured may become more defensive about their position.
This finding does not mean clinicians should avoid providing information. Rather, it suggests that information delivery must be embedded within a relational framework — one that first establishes trust, acknowledges the parent's concerns as legitimate, and presents facts in response to specific questions rather than as pre-emptive correction. The evidence supports information as a component of the conversation, not the entirety of it. The AAP clinical report emphasises that "the how of the conversation matters as much as the what."
Physician time is a major barrier to implementing MI-based vaccine conversations in busy practices. Two complementary lines of evidence suggest this barrier can be partially addressed. The Soren 2024 RCT demonstrated that non-physician peer educators, trained in MI and vaccine science, successfully increased uptake in communities resistant to physician-delivered messaging. The peer model may be particularly effective in communities where trust in institutional medicine is low and culturally congruent messengers carry greater credibility.
Separately, the AAP clinical report emphasises the role of the entire clinic team — front desk staff, medical assistants, and nurses — in normalising vaccination throughout the visit. When vaccination is framed consistently by multiple team members as a routine expected component of care, the presumptive message is reinforced before the clinician enters the room. Implementation studies of team-based approaches have shown improvements in both process measures (such as Vaccine Information Statement distribution, which rose from 33% to 91% in one quality improvement initiative) and vaccine uptake.
Quality & Consistency of Evidence
What the Evidence Does Not Show
No intervention has been demonstrated to be effective for parents who completely refuse all vaccines. Most studies enrol vaccine-hesitant parents — those who delay or selectively refuse — rather than families who are ideologically opposed to vaccination altogether. Whether MI or presumptive approaches have any effect on firm refusers remains unknown, and the 2024 AAP report acknowledges this as a distinct population requiring different strategies.
The evidence base is heavily weighted toward U.S. and European populations. Whether the presumptive format, which carries cultural assumptions about the authority of clinical recommendations, translates effectively to settings with different provider-patient dynamics — including many low- and middle-income countries — has not been adequately studied. Similarly, while the Soren 2024 trial demonstrated effectiveness in one religious community, peer-based MI models have not been tested across diverse communities with distinct cultural or religious objections to vaccination.
Long-term effects of communication interventions remain poorly characterised. Most studies measure outcomes at a single visit or over months; whether MI-based approaches produce sustained changes in vaccine acceptance over years of well-child care — particularly as children age into the adolescent vaccination schedule — is not established. The durability of the clinician-training effect (whether providers maintain communication skills without ongoing reinforcement) is also uncertain.
Practical Implications
Based on the current evidence, the following considerations reflect areas where the data most clearly inform clinical communication about vaccines. These are evidence-based considerations, not prescriptive instructions — local context, patient relationships, and clinical judgement remain essential.
Rather than asking parents how they feel about vaccines, the evidence consistently shows that clinicians who state vaccines as a routine expected part of the visit — "Emma is due for three vaccines today" — encounter significantly less resistance. This format can be adapted to include a brief tag question ("Is that okay?") without losing its effectiveness, and it has been perceived by clinicians as time-saving and easy to implement.
For the approximately one quarter of parents who voice hesitancy despite a presumptive approach, the available evidence supports transitioning to MI techniques. This involves open-ended exploration of concerns, reflective listening, affirming the parent's involvement, and eliciting their own reasons for considering vaccination — rather than lecturing or providing counterarguments.
When parents initially resist, clinicians who pursue their recommendation — rather than immediately acquiescing — see nearly half of resistant parents change their decision within the same visit. The AAP clinical report frames this as advocating for the child's health while maintaining a respectful tone, not as coercion or pressure.
Given the time constraints of clinical practice, the evidence supports distributing the vaccine message across the entire care team and, in high-refusal communities, using trained peer educators. Consistent messaging from front desk through physician encounter reinforces vaccination as routine and expected.
Evidence Grade & Bottom Line
Overall Evidence Grade: Moderate
The evidence supporting the presumptive format is strong, grounded in multiple study designs with consistent results and endorsed by the AAP. The evidence for MI as a follow-up strategy is moderate and growing, with supportive results from RCTs in multiple settings but awaiting definitive confirmation from the PIVOT with MI trial. The combined tiered approach is biologically and psychologically plausible and endorsed by expert consensus, but direct trial evidence is not yet available. Evidence against reliance on educational interventions alone is moderate to strong.
A "moderate" overall grade — with a strong component for the presumptive format — means that clinicians can confidently adopt the presumptive initiation style based on available evidence. The MI component, while not yet confirmed by a single definitive trial, is supported by converging evidence from multiple sources and carries minimal risk of harm. The key practice shift is away from the reflexive participatory question ("What do you want to do about shots?") and toward a clear, confident clinical recommendation as the starting point of every vaccine discussion.
- Open the vaccine conversation with a presumptive statement, not an open-ended question — this single change is associated with the largest difference in parental acceptance across the evidence base.
- When parents resist, pursue the recommendation respectfully and transition to MI techniques that explore ambivalence rather than providing counterarguments.
- Educating parents with facts is necessary but insufficient — the relationship context and communication format in which information is delivered matters as much as the information itself.
- Consider team-based approaches and peer educator models to extend the reach of evidence-based vaccine communication beyond the physician encounter.
- No communication strategy has been shown to overcome firm vaccine refusal in ideologically committed parents; the evidence applies primarily to the 10–30% of parents who are hesitant rather than opposed, and long-term durability of intervention effects remains uncertain.
Article Information
For Educational Purposes Only. This is an original evidence synthesis informed by the studies listed below. It does not replace clinical judgement. Drug dosages should be verified against current prescribing information.
References
- O'Leary ST, Opel DJ, Cataldi JR, Hackell JM; Committee on Infectious Diseases, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Committee on Bioethics. Strategies for improving vaccine communication and uptake. Pediatrics. 2024;153(3):e2023065483. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2023-065483
- Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, et al. The architecture of provider-parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits. Pediatrics. 2013;132(6):1037-1046. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-2037
- Opel DJ, Mangione-Smith R, Robinson JD, et al. The influence of provider communication behaviors on parental vaccine acceptance and visit experience. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(10):1998-2004. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302425
- Opel DJ, Zhou C, Robinson JD, et al. Impact of childhood vaccine discussion format over time on immunization status. Acad Pediatr. 2018;18(4):430-436. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2017.12.009
- O'Leary ST, Spina CI, Spielvogle H, et al. Development of PIVOT with MI: a motivational interviewing-based vaccine communication training for pediatric clinicians. Vaccine. 2023;41(10):1760-1767. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.010
- Gagneur A, Battista MC, Boucher F, et al. Promoting vaccination at maternity wards using a motivational interview reduces hesitancy and enhances intention to vaccinate: a multicenter pre- and post-design RCT-nested study, Quebec, March 2014 to February 2015. Euro Surveill. 2019;24(36):1800641. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.36.1800641
- Gagneur A, Gutnick D, Berthiaume P, et al. From vaccine hesitancy to vaccine motivation: a motivational interviewing based approach to vaccine counselling. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2024;20(1):2391625. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2391625
- Soren K, Frasso R, Gany F, et al. Peer education as a strategy to promote vaccine acceptance: a randomized controlled trial within New York community healthcare practices. Vaccine. 2024;42(17):3735-3742. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.05.046
- Holford DL, Fasce A, Lopez-Lopez E, et al. A field test of empathetic refutational and motivational interviewing to address vaccine hesitancy among patients. npj Vaccines. 2025;10:121. DOI: 10.1038/s41541-025-01197-8
- Kaufman J, Ryan R, Walsh L, et al. Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD010038. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010038.pub3
- Abenova M, Shaltynov A, Jamedinova U, Semenova Y. Worldwide child routine vaccination hesitancy rate among parents of children aged 0–6 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Vaccines. 2024;12(1):31. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12010031