Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background People with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS) face increased infection and mortality risks due to their disease and potentially immunosuppressive therapy. Comprehensive vaccination is recommended, but reported vaccination rates in pwMS vary, and concerns about safety und effectiveness are discussed as one possible reason. Objectives This study examines the vaccination rates and hesitancy in pwMS from the perspectives of patients, neurologists, and general practitioners (GPs) to identify possible approaches to overcome the hesitation. Methods Between March and December 2023 narrative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen patients, five neurologists, and ten GPs in Germany. Pseudonymized data were analyzed using Kuckartz’s Qualitative Content Analysis with MAXQDA, incorporating deductive and inductive codes. Results In total, thirty participants were interviewed. Our findings suggest that some pwMS experience gaps in vaccination-related information and desire more proactive information from physicians. Several participants described that communication between neurologists and GPs was limited and that it was not always clear which physician addresses vaccination counselling and administration. Fear of side effects and misinformation encountered by patients affect vaccination willingness. Patients prefer precise and consistent information materials on vaccination timelines. Conclusion Misinformation or lack of information may contribute to vaccination reluctance. Addressing patients’ concerns with comprehensible information appears to be an important element of vaccination counselling from the perspective of the participants. Our findings highlight the importance of improved communication and education among all parties involved in vaccination. Trial registration German Register of Clinical Studies (DRKS): https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00031559 (Registration Date: 28.08.2023, retrospectively registered).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suslow et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: