Policies Among US Pediatricians for Dismissing Patients for Delaying or Refusing Vaccination

Challenging the 'acceptable option': Public health's advocacy for continued care in the case of pediatric vaccine refusal

BACKGROUND

In the United States, nearly half of pediatricians dismiss or refuse to accept families that withhold consent from the administration of childhood vaccines. Since 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics has called patient dismissal in these cases "an acceptable option." Clinician dismissal and non-acceptance pose a problem to public health because they cluster under-vaccinated children in the practices that remain willing to treat such children, and they decrease access to routine care for children who cannot find practices willing to accept or retain them. This paper reports the emergence of a new consciousness about dismissal and non-acceptance policies in the leadership of a local health department (LHD) of a populous metropolitan county.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the prevalence and diversity of patient dismissal within Oakland County, Michigan and to measure shifts in clinicians' attitudes about dismissal following an educational intervention.

METHODS

A preliminary community survey was distributed to immunizing providers during April 2023 with 61 responses measuring the frequency and reasoning for dismissal policies. The results of the survey were used to inform a brief, evidence-backed educational intervention which was delivered in June 2023 to 82 participants from local pediatric medical offices.

RESULTS

The initial survey was completed by 61 immunizing providers, representing an estimated 37% of vaccinating practices in the county. Half said their practice "always" or "sometimes" dismisses patients due to vaccine refusal. After the educational intervention, the proportion of participants who agreed/strongly agreed with the statement "I believe patient dismissal for vaccine refusal is a good choice for public health" decreased from 36% to 18%.

CONCLUSION

The changes that we observed between the pre- and post-intervention surveys demonstrate the opportunity that exists for LHD leaders to enter the conversation around patient dismissal and nonacceptance and shed new light on this issue.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

Activities, Motivations and Demographics of Provaccine Advocates

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing public health concern and has been classified as a major threat to global health by the World Health Organization. While there has been extensive research on the attitudes of vaccine-hesitant individuals, little is known about provaccination advocates. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics, attitudes, activities and motivations of provaccination advocates.

METHODS

An internet survey was conducted in July-November 2019. US vaccine advocacy groups were invited to partner in survey distribution. Participants were recruited from a convenience sample of their members. Advocacy activities were categorized as policy related, in-person or online.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 1239) were mostly female (82%), White (87%) and highly educated (90%). Most reported Democratic political affiliation (66%). The most common occupation was health care practitioner (38%). Most respondents (90%) agreed that a policy that did not allow patients to refuse or spread-out vaccines would encourage them to choose that clinic. The most common policy-related activity was contacting an elected official about vaccines. The most common in-person activity was speaking with a friend or family member about vaccines. The most reported online activity was using social media to advocate for vaccines. The most common motivation for vaccine advocacy was a sense of responsibility as a community member.

CONCLUSIONS

Provaccine individuals engaged in a variety of advocacy activities and were motivated by responsibility to their community in addition to other factors. Continued work to better understand and motivate vaccine advocates may inform efforts to bolster vaccine confidence and influence those who accept vaccines to become advocates.

Everyday Ethics in Ambulatory Pediatrics: Cases and Applications

This article presents three clinical scenarios that might be encountered in ambulatory pediatrics. The framework for ethical analysis presented by Dr Hughes in a separate article in this issue of the Journal is used to examine these clinical scenarios and demonstrate application of the framework. The three cases involve a physician being asked by parents to write a letter for better housing that would require the doctor to be dishonest; parents who decline to have their 8-month-old daughter vaccinated; and a physician who believes contraception is a sin and therefore would not prescribe it to a sexually active 17-year-old girl.

Mind the gap: Concordance between perceptions regarding vaccination as declared by patients and their evaluation by their general practitioner

BACKGROUND

The high level of vaccine hesitancy reported in the French population may lead general practitioners to anticipate difficult discussions on this topic. We aimed to assess the extent to which general practitioners' evaluation of their patients' vaccine hesitancy was correlated with the real vaccine hesitancy expressed by these patients.

METHODS

The study was based on two brief paper questionnaires completed in private by the general practitioner and the patient at the beginning of a medical appointment: one for the physician to evaluate on three quantitative and non-graduated visual scales (then analysed as a 0-100 scale) their patients' perceptions regarding vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy and 'being in favour of vaccination'; and one for the patient to express their perceptions for the same three axes using the same scales.

RESULTS

Overall, 31 physicians participated in the study, with 540 physician-patient pairs being included. The physicians' evaluation of patient perceptions was more positive when the physician was male (vs female), when the patient was male (vs female) and when both were males (vs both females). The median differences (in absolute values) between the physician evaluations and the patient perceptions were between 9 and 11 (on the 0-100 scale) for the three axes (vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy and 'being in favour'). A correlation was observed between the physicians' evaluation and the patients' declaration (Kendall test: vaccine efficacy: tau = 0.199, p < 0.001; vaccine safety: tau = 0.234, p < 0.001; being in favour of vaccination: tau = 0.365, p < 0.001). Physicians correctly classified 83.4 % of the patients with high perceptions of vaccine safety and efficacy (>75/100 for both scales) but only 54.5 % of those with low perceptions (<75/100 for both scales).

CONCLUSION

Physicians tend to correctly identify patients with the most favourable perceptions about vaccination but not those with the least favourable perceptions.

Parental vaccine hesitancy: scope, causes, and potential responses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the literature about parental vaccine hesitancy, focusing on publications from October 2019 to April 2021 to describe patterns and causes of hesitancy and interventions to address hesitancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies expand understanding of the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy globally and highlight associated individual and contextual factors. Common concerns underlying hesitancy include uncertainty about the need for vaccination and questions about vaccine safety and efficacy. Sociodemographic factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy vary across locations and contexts. Studies about psychology of hesitancy and how parents respond to interventions highlight the role of cognitive biases, personal values, and vaccination as a social contract or norm. Evidence-based strategies to address vaccine hesitancy include presumptive or announcement approaches to vaccine recommendations, motivational interviewing, and use of immunization delivery strategies like standing orders and reminder/recall programs. A smaller number of studies support use of social media and digital applications to improve vaccination intent. Strengthening school vaccine mandates can improve vaccination rates, but policy decisions must consider local context.

SUMMARY

Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge for child health. Future work must include more interventional studies to address hesitancy and regular global surveillance of parental vaccine hesitancy and vaccine content on social media.