You’re well aware that vaccine communication doesn’t happen in a neutral environment. It happens amid changing federal guidance, in emotionally charged social conditions, and in relationships that often already carry trust, strain, or history. At times like this, reflective practice supports our professional judgment, especially when guidance shifts and emotions run high.
This checklist is a tool for supporting your professional judgment. It’s meant to help ensure that how you communicate reflects what you value, even in difficult or repetitive conversations. Use it to quickly orient yourself to the clinical, emotional, and relational factors shaping a vaccine conversation.
1. Situational Assessment
Context matters. Before speaking, consider that:
☐ Federal guidance or recommendations are changing
☐ Emotions are present (yours, the patient’s, both)
☐ The relationship carries history or strain
2. Clinician Self-Check
Health professionals who communicate about vaccines bring:
- Research-based knowledge
- Professional norms and obligations
- Strong feelings about vaccines and public health
This combination increases both authority and risk. Unexamined emotions can quietly shape tone, framing, and assumptions, especially when conversations feel repetitive or high-stakes.
Communication move:
Acknowledge when your own feelings may be influencing:
☐ How quickly you explain
☐ How narrowly you frame options
☐ How you interpret patient responses
3. Working Hypothesis About the Patient
Every encounter contains an implicit theory about the of the patient:
- What you think they believe
- Why you think they believe it
- How you expect them to respond
These assumptions often operate below awareness—but they make their way into language, pacing, and framing.
Communication move:
☐ Treat assumptions as provisional hypotheses, not facts.
☐ Revisit them as the conversation unfolds.
4. Evaluate Your Language
Even accurate information can fail if it:
- Sounds patronizing or overly simplified
- Feels pre-packaged or generic
- Signals that the patient is not being taken seriously
Deficit perspectives—treating non-normative thinking as a problem to be corrected—undermine reasoning by narrowing possible interpretations.
Communication move: Assess language the same way you would a treatment:
☐ Is this appropriately tailored?
☐ What unintended effects might it have?
5. Framing Scan
Watch for reasoning shortcuts:
☐ Us-versus-Them framing
☐ Category labels standing in for individuals
☐ Antagonistic or defensive tone
Communication cue: If conflict rises, information gathering usually drops.
6. Obligation Balancing
Recall that you are holding multiple commitments:
- Scientific accuracy
- Professional responsibility
- Patient autonomy
- Relationship preservation
Communication cue: There is no single correct balance, and no single right way to do this.
Reflection Guide / Discussion Prompts
For post-encounter reflection, supervision, or team sense-making
Individual Reflection
- Where did my strongest emotions show up in this conversation?
- What assumptions did I carry in—and which were challenged?
- Did my language reflect my values, or my fatigue?
Team Reflection
- Where do we tend to default to deficit perspectives?
- How do institutional messages influence our individual encounters?
- What supports clearer reasoning when conversations feel repetitive or charged?
Take it easy on yourself. This is hard work. Remember, as the American Hospital Association noted during COVID vaccine communication: “There is no one way to do this.”