While there has been a move from encoura

While there has been a move from encouraging patients to unquestioningly comply with health professionals, towards making informed decisions (Hargreaves, Stewart, & Oliver, 2005; Raffle, 2001; Rimer, Briss, Zeller, Chan, & Woolf, 2004), evidence suggests that conscious/effortful thinking might not result in good decision-making (Kahneman, 2003) and our review suggests that some people find this difficult. Furthermore, some parents are happy to go along with the recommendations of vaccination experts without considering the decision further and we know that the use of ‘presumptive’ communication (for example, ‘your child is due for the HPV vaccine’) is associated with greater vaccine acceptance compared with ‘participatory’ communication (for example, ‘what do you want to do about the HPV vaccine?’) (Opel, Mangione-Smith, Robinson, Heritage, DeVere, & Salas, 2015). Presumptive communication may shift parents into making a non-deliberative decision, which although it may increase vaccine uptake, may not be the best way to promote informed decision-making (Opel et al., 2015). The ‘consider an offer’ approach, put forward to facilitate patients making decisions about attending screening, might suit parents’ needs better (Entwistle, Carter, & Trevena, 2008). In this approach, communicators would recommend vaccination, discuss why it is being offered, help parents assess the appropriateness of vaccination for their child and provide additional information where needed. Parents can then respond to the recommendation in a manner that suits them; some may accept the recommendation from a health professional, while others may want further discussion. There may be a need for interventions to facilitate this discussion, based on the findings of this review, so that health professionals can anticipate and appropriately respond to parents’ queries. Such interventions need to be developed in collaborative partnership between parents, policy makers and health professionals. The ‘consider an offer’ approach will work best in settings involving parents and individual health professionals (rather than all trans retinoic acid / school-based programmes). It must also be acknowledged that health professionals will not always be a trusted source of advice and, as suggested in our review, parents might defer to the media or other parents.
Conflicts of interest
Funding This work was supported by Cancer Research UK [Grant numbers C49896/A17429 to AF, C7492/A17219 to JW, C42785/A17965 to SS]. The funder played no role in the study design, collection analysis or interpretation of data, in the writing of the article or the decision to submit for publication.
Sources of support
Acknowledgements
Introduction Social capital is defined as the resources accessed through social connections. From an individual (egocentric) perspective, these resources include the exchange of social support, information channels and social credentials. From a collective perspective, social capital comprises at least three dimensions: a) group solidarity and social cohesion (e.g., perceptions of trust, norms of reciprocity); b) the ability of the group to undertake collective action (collective efficacy) and to enforce social norms (informal social control); and c) civic engagement and participation (Berkman, Kawachi & Glymour, 2014). Social capital has been linked to health outcomes in a variety of settings, including residential neighborhoods, workplaces and schools. One important distinction is between bonding and bridging types of social capital. Bonding social capital refers to connections between members of a network who are similar to each other with respect to social class, race/ethnicity, or other attributes. By contrast, bridging social capital is defined as the connections between individuals who are dissimilar (or heterogeneous) with respect to socioeconomic and other characteristics. The distinction matters because reciprocal exchanges that can take place in groups with high bonding social capital are constrained by the totality of resources available within the network. For example, the social ties that exist within socioeconomically disadvantaged communities may be characterized by intense levels of mutual assistance. However, the overall availability of resources (e.g., cash loans, labor in-kind) is often constrained, such that bonding social capital in these circumstances can actually strain the psychosocial wellbeing of network members. The presence of bridging social capital helps to build trust and maintain channels of communication between disputing groups. Bridging social capital provides low SES individuals with the potential to access resources outside of their constrained environment. For low SES groups, it is akin to Nan Lin\'s concept of “upper reachability” in social networks, i.e. the ability of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups to access valued resources such as information and instrumental assistance (Lin, Cook & Burt, 2001; Lin, 1999). Indeed access to bridging capital can be conceptualized as one of the distinguishing hallmarks of socioeconomic privilege. High SES groups routinely draw on status, prestige, power, and authority via their powerful social connections – e.g. when a businessman calls upon a politician to expedite their dealings.