Parental awareness and attitudes towards prevention of respiratory syncytial virus in infants and young children in Australia

Introduction

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the predominant cause of respiratory infections and is most prevalent in infants and young children.¹ RSV causes 33.0 million annual cases globally, 3.6 million hospitalisations and 101,400 deaths in children aged less than 5 years.² RSV is the leading cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia, and is associated with later respiratory morbidity including asthma and long-term wheezing.^3,4,5 Infants at risk of developing severe RSV infections include those <6 months or born prematurely (<37 weeks gestation), and children of all ages with comorbidities.^6,7 RSV causes seasonal epidemics, often peaking in the winter months,⁸ but there has been some variability to the typical seasonal pattern since COVID-19.^9,10 Currently, Palivizumab is the only licensed RSV prevention product,¹¹ available to high-risk infants and requires costly monthly injections.^12,13

Since 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recognised RSV as a priority target for prevention through vaccination.¹⁴ The RSV vaccination landscape is rapidly progressing, with >30 maternal vaccine and single dose long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) candidates in clinical trials. Whilst no vaccine candidates have yet been approved for use in Australia, a single dose long-acting mAb has been approved in Europe and the United Kingdom.^15,16 Thus, with the imminent arrival of RSV immunisation strategies in Australia, it is critical to understand what factors may contribute to uptake of these products. A Melbourne based study in 2019 found 83.0% of pregnant mothers had never heard of RSV before, though after receiving information, 77.0% were very likely to accept an RSV maternal vaccine.¹⁷ Similar findings were found in a recent global study.¹⁸ These findings suggest that maternal vaccine and mAb uptake may rely on parents having sufficient awareness and knowledge of RSV.^17,18 There is currently a lack of contemporary data on RSV community awareness in Australia. We aimed to assess parent awareness of RSV and the level of acceptance of RSV prevention strategies.

Methods

Results

From a 6-week period, 1,992 eligible participants were recruited; 464 formed the pregnant/planning subgroup (61 participants who fit only into this subgroup were considered “future parents”) and 1,931 formed the current parent subgroup (403 participants fit into both subgroups). The majority of participants were aged 25-39 years (86.6%), were female (98.9%), born in Australia (77.2%) and spoke English as their primary language (85.1%; Table 1). Participants were distributed from all states of Australia, with New South Wales (27.9%), Western Australia (24.7%) and Victoria (22.8%) having the highest number of respondents. Majority of participants had a university degree (68.5%) and nearly half (49.3%) were working either full time or part-time. This was a high proportion compared to the ABS 2021 Census that reported 30.7% of the population have a university degree and 43.5% work full time or part-time.²¹

Most participants (>80.0%) in the future and current parent subgroups had heard of all the childhood respiratory illnesses and pathogens, aside from Bordetella pertussis where only half of participants indicated they were aware (50.8% future: 56.3% current; Table 2). This was despite the majority of participants having heard of whooping cough (95.1% future: 95.0% current). Over three-quarters (78.7%) of future and 89.6% of current parents reported awareness of RSV. Notably, awareness was lower in the future parent subgroup compared to the current parent subgroup for all conditions; but only reached statistical significance for RSV, bronchiolitis and pneumonia (Table 2).

Pneumonia and whooping cough caused the highest level of concern (Figure 1). Respondents with RSV awareness had limited knowledge of associated RSV conditions (Supplementary Table 1). Only half (50.0%) of future parents and 64.2% of current parents were aware that pneumonia is associated with RSV; and 52.1% of future parents and 71.8% of current parents were aware that bronchiolitis is associated. Parents also demonstrated a low level of understanding that asthma (31.3% future; 30.6% current) and wheezing (56.3% future; 74.7% current) can be associated with RSV. From 1,931 current parents, 712 (36.9%) indicated that at least one of their children aged ≤5 years had been infected with RSV before; of those, 304 (42.3%) reported their child required hospitalisation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Level of worry towards childhood respiratory illnesses in the future parent subgroup (A) and current parent subgroup (B).

Note: excludes participants who did not respond. Participants were asked about how worried they would be if their young child were to contract such conditions. Conditions are listed in order of level of worry (from left to right).

Univariate logistic regression analysis suggested being born in Australia, speaking English as a primary language, living in the eastern states, having a university degree, and working full time or part time were associated with a higher level of awareness of RSV (Table 3). In the adjusted model, demographic factors associated with RSV awareness were being born in Australia (aOR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.48-4.12), English as a primary language (aOR=1.37; 95%CI: 0.62-3.05) and living in the Eastern states. Compared to future parents, current parents had a 12-fold increased likelihood of RSV awareness (aOR=12.26; 95%CI: 2.82-52.28). Parents with personal experience of RSV were 6.6 times more likely to be aware of RSV (aOR=6.66, 95%CI: 3.26-13.64).

Prior to being provided information on RSV, all pregnant/planning parents (including those with and without prior children) had a high level of acceptance (79.7%, n=370) towards receiving a maternal RSV vaccine. Similarly, the acceptance of a maternal vaccine was high in the future parent group (including only those without prior children; 86.9%, n=53). Overall, future (93.4%) and current parents (81.4%) had a high level of acceptance towards an infant RSV immunisation prior to information being provided.

There were no participants in the future parent subgroup and only 20 (1.0%) participants in the current parent subgroup that were not accepting of infant immunisation. Future parents who were accepting of both immunisation strategies (N=57) were asked on their immunisation strategy preference; majority accepted the maternal vaccine in combination or isolation of an infant immunisation as opposed to only an infant immunisation (both: 49.1%, maternal vaccine: 38.6%, infant immunisation: 3.5%).

Prior to completing the survey, few ‘future’ parents were unaware of RSV (10/61), but 90% (9/10) of these were willing to accept a maternal vaccine prior to learning about RSV, which increased to 100% after receiving information. Similarly, 97 of 1,931 ‘current’ parents were unaware of RSV prior to participation, however, 78.4% (76/97) were accepting of infant immunisation prior to learning about RSV, which increased to 85.6% (83/97) after receiving information.

The amount current and future parents were willing to pay for immunisations did not significantly differ before or after being provided with information on RSV. However, the median price of RSV childhood immunisation increased from A$69.00 to A$75.00 in future parents following information being provided (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Amount parents were willing to pay for new RSV prevention strategies.

Pregnant/planning parents were questioned on RSV maternal vaccines, and all parents (future and current) were questioned on RSV childhood immunisatio n. Participants were able to select any amount ranging from $0-$150. Note: excludes participants who did not respond.

Participants in the pregnant/planning subgroup identified their top 3 sources for infectious disease and vaccine information as their midwife (32.1%), google search (26.3%) and obstetrician (14.0%). Of those who selected google search, nearly half (46.0%) further indicated Government websites, 28.3% hospital websites, 12.4% science articles and 9.7% special health websites. Participants in the current parent subgroup identified their top 3 sources for information as google search (34.6%), their nurse (21.0%) and midwife (13.6%). Similar, most common google searches were for special health websites (44.4%), hospital websites (40.7%), Government websites (7.8%) or science articles (6.1%).

From 1,538 participants responding to the open-ended question regarding information needs for immunisation decision-making, three key themes were identified: defining RSV, prevention product information, and research and evidence (having peer-reviewed scientific evidence). Participants highlighted they need further information on RSV before accepting immunisations, including understanding the virus, symptoms, complications, severity, likelihood of infection and age groups most at risk. Respondents indicated that they’d also require information on the specific RSV prevention product, including benefits and risks, effectiveness, number and frequency of doses, management of side effects, and ideal age/s of administration. Some respondents indicated the need for approval from relevant government bodies and medical authorities, results and safety data from clinical trials and information from peer-reviewed sources.

Discussion

We present here contemporary data on the parental awareness of RSV and acceptability of RSV immunisation strategies, likely to be available in Australia in the next 1-2 years. Current and future parents had a high level of awareness of most common childhood respiratory illnesses, including RSV. Notably, current parents were more aware of RSV compared to future parents. Though most participants had heard of RSV, there was a lack of awareness on associated conditions, especially among future parents. Indeed, the strongest independent factor of RSV awareness was being a current parent of a child aged ≤5 years.

Contrary to our findings, an earlier study in 2019 in Australia found majority of participants (83.0%) had never heard of RSV.¹⁷ However, our results are similar to that observed in a recent global study; majority of participants were only aware of the name of the virus and experienced parents had a higher level of awareness compared to new parents.¹⁸ The global study shared other similar observations; participants were more concerned about pneumonia than RSV perse and were more concerned about RSV than they were about bronchiolitis.¹⁸ There are several factors that are likely to contribute to the high level of awareness of RSV observed in our study. Firstly, our survey was administered at a time of peak RSV activity in 2022, especially in New South Wales (1000 cases recorded in the third quarter of 2022)²² and Victoria (11,291 cases in the same period).²² Secondly, there was increased media coverage on RSV in Australia due to the heightened number of cases²³, and thirdly, our survey demographic was a highly educated population. Regardless of the high proportion of participants who were aware of RSV, the knowledge of key associated conditions including pneumonia and bronchiolitis was significantly low. This suggests the need for more education amongst Australian parents, particularly first-time parents, on disease severity of RSV in children.

In our study, parents had a high level of acceptance towards both RSV immunisation strategies prior to receiving information. Additionally, parents who had never heard of RSV became more accepting of immunisation once they received information. This demonstrates the importance of adequate knowledge of RSV as a key contributing factor towards acceptability of RSV immunisation. Furthermore, the median price future parents were willing to pay for RSV childhood immunisation increased by A$6 following receiving information. This conjecture was supported by both the Melbourne¹⁷ and global¹⁸ study. Both current and future parents referred to reputable and reliable sources for information regarding infectious diseases and vaccines. Furthermore, the qualitative findings in the study indicate that parents require information on RSV, as well as on associated prevention products and evidence supporting their use, to help in decision-making for RSV immunisations. Thus, when RSV immunisation strategies are implemented in Australia, it is vital that parents are equipped with information on the product and the disease. Such materials should particularly be targeted towards future parents; there is evidently a critical time and opportunity to inform new parents about RSV.

A major strength of our study was the large sample size we were able to attain through online recruitment. Facebook was the social media platform that reached the highest level of engagement with 159,624 impressions, 84 comments, 37 shares and 128 reactions. The use of a broad message summarising the purpose of the study, an engaging image (e.g., infant or pregnant mother receiving an immunisation), and the survey accessible online, were important factors to the successful participant recruitment. A further strength of our study was the co-designing of questions with community members including question wording and how to make the survey advertising appeal to the target audience. The result of community involvement in our research produced a simple, inclusive and easy to understand survey.

Despite these strengths, our study was not without limitations. The narrow demographic range of participants significantly reduced the generalisability of the results to the overall Australian population.²¹ People who are highly educated, spoke English, and from a middle to upper socioeconomic class were over-represented in the data. For this reason, there may have been an overestimation of the level of RSV awareness and acceptance of future immunisations. Another limitation of the study was that the online promotion of the survey was targeted to those engaged online with organisations involved in awareness of childhood respiratory conditions. This may have increased selection bias in the study as there is an assumption that participants who are engaged online with such organisations would have a heightened awareness about childhood respiratory conditions.

Further work investigating parental awareness and attitudes towards RSV prevention in Australia is needed, particularly focusing on groups from lower socio-economic backgrounds and targeting those who are at higher risk of severe outcomes associated with RSV. This could include groups with low levels of education, high unemployment rates, those from rural or remote Australia, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander families, culturally and linguistically diverse families, premature infants, and children with comorbidities. We are planning on conducting culturally appropriate research targeted towards and working alongside Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander families.

Conclusion

With Australia expected to follow Europe and the UK with licensure of mAb and expected licensure of a RSV maternal vaccine, more awareness of RSV among the community is required. Education and awareness campaigns would be most beneficial prior to childbirth, particularly among first time parents.

Conflicts of Interest

Associate Professor Richmond and Associate Professor Moore is in receipt of research funds from Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd and Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (unrelated to the work presented in this paper). Associate Professor Richmond and Associate Professor Moore has also received institutional honoraria for participating in advisory committees (Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, EvoHealth) also unrelated to the work presented in this paper.

Author contributions

Holland C had primary responsibility for survey development, statistical analysis (quantitative) and writing the manuscript.

Baker M had responsibility of project management, statistical analysis (qualitative) and editing/reviewing the manuscript.

Bates A and Hughes C had investigator roles and responsibility of providing feedback on the survey questionnaire and design and editing/reviewing the manuscript.

Dr Carlson and A.Prof Moore HC had primary responsibility of project conceptualisation, protocol development, methodology development, supervision and editing/reviewing the manuscript.

A.Prof Richmond supervised the overall project.