Introduction : Recommendations from healthcare providers are considered by vaccinees and their parents when they decide whether to receive an immunization. However, in Japan, the attitudes of primary care physicians toward vaccination are unknown. We assessed some practices and recommendations of, and barriers to, primary care physicians regarding vaccinations in Japan.
Methods : A self-administered questionnaire was mailed (in 2012) to 3000 randomly selected physician-members of the Japan Primary Care Association. Excluded were physicians within two years after graduation, living abroad or retired. We described respondent practices, recommendations, and barriers to the provision of routine and voluntary vaccinations.
Results : The overall response rate was 25.8%. The rates at which physicians gave routine and voluntary vaccines in their own practices were 29.0-91.4% and 15.2-89.5%, respectively. The vaccine recommendation rates for routine and voluntary vaccines were 58.2-70.2% and 14.1-50.9%, respectively. The physicians reported that their barriers to recommendation of routine vaccines were vaccination schedule complexity (32.9%), opinions of vaccinees and parents (28.9%), and vaccine safety (27.7%). They also reported that perceived vaccine safety (62.1%), lack of understanding of vaccine-preventable diseases (55.7%), and complexity of vaccine schedules (44.4%) were reasons given by vaccinees and parents for noncompliance. Physicians' barriers to recommendation of voluntary vaccines were cost (45.3%), safety (35.1%), and lack of information (30.1%). They reported that vaccinees and parents expressed concern about cost (61.8%), safety (51.8%), and lack of vaccine information (50.7%).
Conclusion : We clarified practices, recommendations, and barriers to primary care physicians regarding routine and voluntary vaccination in Japan.

Objective: To clarify how and when Japanese family physicians assess families in their daily practice.Methods: Participants were Japanese family physicians with over one year of experience of full-time work in their clinics, and who were able to join the focus group discussions (FGD) and member checking. The study employed a qualitative research design with semi-structured FGD. Two analysts examined video recordings of the FGD, and the results were verified through member checking and the checking by external members.Results: Physicians assessed families naturally while examining patients for common cold, during vaccination, and during registration in the Japanese care insurance system.Additionally, the physicians assessed the families when they observed or suspected something strange regarding the patient and/or the family.Families were assessed based on how they spent their time during special Japanese events that the family members attended together (e.g., Bon festival or Japanese style New Year holidays), the patient's illness behavior in non-reserved outpatient clinics, and their communication patterns. Furthermore, the family photograph technique for family therapy was also used for assessment.Conclusion: Participants utilized skills of family therapy such as communication patterns and family photographs. They also employed unique skills such as assessment of the families' sharing time during traditional events, assessment of the patient's illness behavior, and general assessments regarding the Japanese care insurance system.

Objective: To clarify the involvement of Japanese family physicians with patients and their families in their daily practice.Methods: Participants were Japanese family physicians with over one year of experience of full-time work in their clinics, and who were able to join the focus group discussions (FGD) and member checks. The study employed a qualitative research design with semi-structured FGD. Two analysts examined video recordings of the FGD, and the results were verified through member checks and external checks.Results: Eight physicians participated at first, but five of them dropped out because of job commitments or death. The involvement by Japanese family physicians consisted of three stages. The first stage was "the approach of repeated hypothesis testing and normalizing" as safety interventions. The second stage was "reevaluation of the family" utilizing family genograms, family conferences, and others. After exhausting all other efforts, they engaged in "accepting the one who comes to them" in collaboration with the patient and families. The outcomes included awareness of patients, their smiles due to feeling accepted, and their expressed emotions. They did not explicitly boast that they were able to engage with family members. In addition, they also needed case studies of instances of "failure." Conclusion: Japanese family physicians engaged in three-stage involvement with families.