Vaccine Refusal and Trust: The Trouble With Coercion and Education and Suggestions for a Cure

The Ethical Significance of Post-Vaccination COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics

The potential for vaccines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases is crucial for vaccination policy and ethics. In this paper, I discuss recent evidence that the current COVID-19 vaccines have only a modest and short-lived effect on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and argue that this has at least four important ethical implications. First, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 should be seen primarily as a self-protective choice for individuals. Second, moral condemnation of unvaccinated people for causing direct harm to others is unjustified. Third, the case for a harm-based moral obligation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is weak. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, coercive COVID-19 vaccination policies (e.g., measures that exclude unvaccinated people from society) cannot be directly justified by the harm principle.

A Millian Case for Censoring Vaccine Misinformation

The spread of vaccine misinformation may contribute to vaccine refusal/hesitancy and consequent harms. Nonetheless, censorship is often rejected on the grounds of free expression. This article examines John Stuart Mill's influential defence of free expression but finds that his arguments for freedom apply only to normal, reasonably favourable circumstances. In other cases, it may be permissible to restrict freedom, including freedom of speech. Thus, while Mill would ordinarily defend the right to express false views, such as that vaccines cause autism, he might have accepted restrictions on anti-vaccine misinformation during the present pandemic. This illustrates that even the staunchest defenders of free speech can permit temporary restrictions in exceptional circumstances.

How Mandatory Can We Make Vaccination?

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has refocused attention on the issue of mandatory vaccination. Some have suggested that vaccines ought to be mandatory, while others propose more moderate alternatives, such as incentives. This piece surveys a range of possible interventions, ranging from mandates through to education. All may have their place, depending on circumstances. However, it is worth clarifying the options available to policymakers, since there is sometimes confusion over whether a particular policy constitutes a mandate or not. Further, I illustrate a different kind of alternative to mandatory vaccination. Rather than seeking less coercive alternatives to a mandate, we might instead employ an alternative mandate, which requires people to do something less than get vaccinated. For instance, we might merely require people to attend an appointment at a vaccine clinic. Whether this mandatory attendance policy is justified will depend on specific circumstances, but it represents another way to promote vaccination, without mandating it. In some cases, this may represent an appropriate balance between promoting public health goals and respecting individual liberty.

Understanding how the Australian vaccine-refusal movement perceives itself

Public health responses to the vaccine-refusal (VR) movement are hindered by inadequate research about the movement's aims, identity and perceived value for its members. This study examined how members of the VR movement in Australia described the movement and what being part of it meant to them. Descriptions of the VR movement by 696 members from across Australia were collected between January and May in 2017 via an online survey. The data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Members' understandings of the movement and the beliefs underpinning these understandings were examined. Vaccine refusal was underpinned by distinct epistemic beliefs. Participants believed that mainstream vaccine promotion relies on dishonest communication of compromised research. They saw the VR movement as a science-based movement, researching both 'mainstream' and 'hidden' knowledge, promoting scientific values and advocating for better vaccine studies. Participants believed responsible parenting requires personally researching healthcare choices. Participants constructed the movement's identity in relation to common criticisms of vaccine refusal. These were discredited and repurposed to portray the movement as being brave and righteous. Participants believed people in the movement are astute, informed, responsible and courageous. They believed many members were impacted by vaccine-related harms, from which the movement now saves others. They saw themselves as fighting for an inconvenient truth that the mainstream ignores. Vaccine promotion needs to address the epistemic beliefs associated with vaccine refusal, yet these have been inadequately understood. Our findings contribute to understanding these beliefs. Furthermore, our findings suggest what messages targeting vaccine-refusing people should focus on. This may include acknowledging the significant effort that vaccine-refusing people invest in trying to protect their children, catering to vaccine-refusing people's high engagement and desire for detailed information, and avoiding stigmatising or confrontational vaccine-promotion strategies.

Effect of a Concise Educational Program on COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes

Background: Vaccination has been recognized as a vital step for containing the COVID-19 outbreak. To ensure the success of immunization efforts as a public health containment measure, a high level of public vaccination compliance is essential. Targeted educational programs can be utilized to improve attitudes toward vaccination and improve the public's uptake of protective measures.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of a concise educational program on perceived knowledge regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine importance and trust, protection and fear from COVID-19, trust in authorities, as well as individual resilience.

Results: The study evaluated 503 participants that completed the questionnaire before and after viewing a concise video tutorial on vaccination. Following the educational program, scores of five variables increased significantly compared to their pre-viewing level: knowledge, personal resilience, trust in authorities, vaccine importance, as well as perceived protection. Those that were vaccinated and/or intend to be vaccinated (N = 394) report higher levels of knowledge, trust in authorities, vaccine importance, vaccine trust, and fear of being infected as compared to those that are unwilling to get vaccinated. Positive significant correlations were found between resilience and trust in authorities (r = 0.169, p < 0.001), vaccine importance (r = 0.098, p = 0.028), and feeling protected (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Trust in authorities was positively correlated with vaccine importance (r = 0.589, p < 0.001) and vaccine trust (r = 0.177, p < 0.001). Vaccine importance was positively correlated with vaccine trust (r = 0.149, p = 0.001), but not correlated with knowledge score.

Conclusion: The findings of the study demonstrate the benefits of educational programs on improving attitudes toward vaccination acceptability. Incorporation of such concise educational programs by authorities may improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and help overcome public vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that such a concise and easily implementable educational program be incorporated as a response component to the current and future outbreaks.

Austria's Digital Vaccination Registry: Stakeholder Views and Implications for Governance

In this study, we explore the recent setup of a digital vaccination record in Austria. Working from a social-scientific perspective, we find that the introduction of the electronic vaccination pass was substantially accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our interviews with key stakeholders (n = 16) indicated that three main factors drove this acceleration. The pandemic (1) sidelined historical conflicts regarding data ownership and invoked a shared sense of the value of data, (2) accentuated the need for enhanced administrative efficiency in an institutionally fragmented system, and (3) helped invoke the national vaccination registry as an indispensable infrastructure for public health governance with the potential to innovate its healthcare system in the long term.

Assessing Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Adult Americans: A Cross-Sectional Study

Given the emergence of breakthrough infections, new variants, and concerns of waning immunity from the primary COVID-19 vaccines, booster shots emerged as a viable option to shore-up protection against COVID-19. Following the recent authorization of vaccine boosters among vulnerable Americans, this study aims to assess COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy and its associated factors in a nationally representative sample. A web-based 48-item psychometric valid survey was used to measure vaccine literacy, vaccine confidence, trust, and general attitudes towards vaccines. Data were analyzed through Chi-square (with a post hoc contingency table analysis) and independent-sample t-/Welch tests. Among 2138 participants, nearly 62% intended to take booster doses and the remaining were COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitant. The vaccine-booster-hesitant group was more likely to be unvaccinated (62.6% vs. 12.9%) and did not intend to have their children vaccinated (86.1% vs. 27.5%) compared to their non-hesitant counterparts. A significantly higher proportion of booster dose hesitant individuals had very little to no trust in the COVID-19 vaccine information given by public health/government agencies (55% vs. 12%) compared to non-hesitant ones. The mean scores of vaccine confidence index and vaccine literacy were lower among the hesitant group compared to the non-hesitant group. Compared to the non-hesitant group, vaccine hesitant participants were single or never married (41.8% vs. 28.7%), less educated, and living in a southern region of the nation (40.9% vs. 33.3%). These findings underscore the need of developing effective communication strategies emphasizing vaccine science in ways that are accessible to individuals with lower levels of education and vaccine literacy to increase vaccination uptake.

A Behavioral analysis of nurses' and pharmacists' role in addressing vaccine hesitancy: scoping review

The purpose of this review was to identify, characterize, and map the existing knowledge on a) nurses' and pharmacists' perceived barriers and enablers to addressing vaccine hesitancy among patients; and b) strategies or interventions for nurses and pharmacists to address vaccine hesitancy in their practice. Our comprehensive search strategy targeted peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two independent reviewers screened papers and extracted data. We coded narrative descriptions of barriers and enablers and interventions using the Behavior Change Wheel. Sixty-six records were included in our review. Reported barriers (n = 9) and facilitators (n = 6) were identified in the capability, opportunity and motivation components. The majority of the reported interventions were categorized as education (n = 47) and training (n = 26). This current scoping review offers a detailed behavioral analysis of known barriers and enablers for nurses and pharmacists to address vaccine hesitancy and interventions mapped onto these behavioral determinants.

Uptake of Non-Mandatory Vaccinations in Future Physicians in Italy

In 2017 in Italy, a number of vaccinations became mandatory or started to be recommended and offered free of charge. In this study, we aimed at assessing the coverage rates for those vaccinations in the pre-mandatory era among students at the School of Medicine of Padua University studying the degree course in medicine and surgery (future physicians) on the basis of the vaccination certificates presented during health surveillance. The vaccinations considered were those against pertussis, rubella, mumps, measles, varicella, Haemophilus influenzae type b (which became mandatory in 2017), pneumococcus, meningococcus C and meningococcus B (only suggested and offered for free since 2017). The study enrolled 4706 students of medicine and surgery. High vaccine uptake was observed, especially in younger students (born after 1990), with vaccines against pertussis, rubella, mumps and measles. Good completion for Haemophilus influenzae type b and meningococcus C was also observed. Very low coverage rates (all under 10%) for vaccination against varicella, pneumococcus and meningococcus B were observed. In conclusion, uptake for some non-mandatory vaccines was below the recommended threshold, although younger generations showed a higher uptake, possibly as a results of policy implemented at the national level. Our findings support the idea to consider health surveillance visits also as an additional opportunity to overcome confidence and convenience barriers and offer vaccine administration.

Qualitative analysis of visual risk communication on twitter during the Covid-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The Covid-19 pandemic is characterized by uncertainty and constant change, forcing governments and health authorities to ramp up risk communication efforts. Consequently, visuality and social media platforms like Twitter have come to play a vital role in disseminating prevention messages widely. Yet to date, only little is known about what characterizes visual risk communication during the Covid-19 pandemic. To address this gap in the literature, this study's objective was to determine how visual risk communication was used on Twitter to promote the World Health Organisations (WHO) recommended preventative behaviours and how this communication changed over time.

METHODS

We sourced Twitter's 500 most retweeted Covid-19 messages for each month from January-October 2020 using Crowdbreaks. For inclusion, tweets had to have visuals, be in English, come from verified accounts, and contain one of the keywords 'covid19', 'coronavirus', 'corona', or 'covid'. Following a retrospective approach, we then performed a qualitative content analysis of the 616 tweets meeting inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our results show communication dynamics changed over the course of the pandemic. At the start, most retweeted preventative messages came from the media and health and government institutions, but overall, personal accounts with many followers (51.3%) predominated, and their tweets had the highest spread (10.0%, i.e., retweet count divided by followers). Messages used mostly photographs and images were found to be rich with information. 78.1% of Tweets contained 1-2 preventative messages, whereby 'stay home' and 'wear a mask' frequented most. Although more tweets used health loss framing, health gain messages spread more.

CONCLUSION

Our findings can inform the didactics of future crisis communication. The results underscore the value of engaging individuals, particularly influencers, as advocates to spread health risk messages and promote solidarity. Further, our findings on the visual characteristic of the most retweeted tweets highlight factors that health and government organisations should consider when creating visual health messages for Twitter. However, that more tweets used the emotive medium of photographs often combined with health loss framing raises concerns about persuasive tactics. More research is needed to understand the implications of framing and its impact on public perceptions and behaviours.

Politics and trust in Ebola vaccine trials The case of Ghana

Vaccine trials for infectious diseases take place in a milieu of trust in which scientists, regulatory institutions, and volunteers trust each other to play traditional roles. This milieu of trust emerges from a combination of preexisting linkages embedded in the local and national political context. Using the case of failed vaccine trials in Hohoe, Ghana, we explore this milieu of trust by employing the concept of tandems of trust and control, with a particular focus on the perceived characteristics of the disease and the linkages formed. An analysis of qualitative interviews collected in Hohoe following the West Africa Ebola outbreak of 2014-2016 shows that the trust/control nexus in vaccine trials precedes the implementation of those trials, while both the characteristics of Ebola and the political context shaped the formation and breakdown of relationships in the trial network.

Balancing professional obligations and risks to providers in learning healthcare systems

Clinicians and administrators have a professional obligation to contribute (OTC) to improvement of healthcare quality. At the same time, participation in embedded research poses risks to healthcare institutions. Disclosure of an institution's sensitive information could endanger relationships with patients and undermine its reputation. The existing ethical framework (EF) for learning healthcare systems (LHSs) does not address the conflict between the OTC and institutional interests. Ethical guidance and policy regulation are needed to create a safe environment for embedded research. In this article we analyse the EF for LHSs and the concept of professionalism. We suggest that the EF should be supplemented with an obligation to protect provider's legitimate interests. We define legitimate interests as those that enable providers to discharge their primary duties. We argue that both the OTC and the obligation to protect legitimate interests are grounded in the concept of medical professionalism and can be understood as a matter of contract between a democratic society and medical professionals. The proposed supplemented EF can be implemented into a regulatory system in three different ways: the self-regulating: where providers decide themselves how to balance the ethical claims, the centralised: where a governmental institution decides the right balance between providers' interests and interests of a health system; and the mediating: where medical professionals, the state and patients negotiate their interests. Our article contributes to the discussion on ethical relevance of providers' interests and the regulatory model for weighing opposite interests in LHSs.

The mad leading the blind: Perceptions of the vaccine-refusal movement among Australians who support vaccination

BACKGROUND

Vaccine refusal is shaped by the social ecology in which it occurs. How people who refuse vaccines are communicated to and treated may affect the nature and strength of their negative vaccine beliefs, and their responsiveness to health promotion messages. Yet little is known about how people who refuse vaccines are perceived by the public. Our research examined perceptions among pro-vaccine Australians of the vaccine-refusal movement.

METHODS

Descriptions of the vaccine-refusal movement by 2666 pro-vaccine Australians were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Descriptive themes were identified via inductive, iterative coding. Discourse analysis techniques were then used to interpret latent beliefs about the vaccine-refusal movement.

RESULTS

Participants had negative and stigmatising perceptions of the vaccine-refusal movement. They believed the movement is dangerous, misinformed, and comprised of charlatans and fools who are unintelligent, selfish, overly emotional, conspiratorial and scientifically illiterate. Discursive analysis showed that these perceptions were underpinned by beliefs that people would have to be defective in some way to believe anti-vaccine rhetoric. Furthermore, perceptions were underpinned by beliefs that the movement spreads not only disease, but also dangerous ideas that were seen to attack the social order, institutions, values and reason. Participants' intensely-negative views related to their inability to imagine why someone would refuse vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

This research provides a focused, qualitative account of public perceptions of the vaccine-refusal movement. The findings are concerning: stigma towards vaccine-refusing people may adversely affect their wellbeing and entrench their negative vaccine beliefs. The research suggests that more compassionate, nuanced discussion of vaccine refusal in the public sphere is needed. It also supports the need to systematically examine public attitudes towards vaccine refusal as a determinant of vaccine confidence.

Perspectives of public health nurses on the ethics of mandated vaccine education

BACKGROUND

Since 2015, Michigan has required parents who request nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school or daycare immunization mandates to receive education from local public health staff (usually nurses). This is unlike most other US states that have implemented mandatory immunization counseling, which require physicians to document immunization education, or which provide online instruction.

PURPOSE

To attend to the activity and dispositions of the public health staff who provide "waiver education".

METHOD

This study reports results of focus group interviews with 39 of Michigan's vaccine waiver educators (37 nurses), conducted during 2016 and 2017, and analyzed in 2018.

FINDINGS

Four themes emerged from analysis of the transcripts of these interviews: Participants had (1) complex and nuanced observations and evaluations of parents' judgments and feelings about vaccines and vaccine education; (2) sympathetic attitudes about alternative vaccine schedules; (3) critical and supportive evaluations of institutional policies and the background political context of immunization education; and (4) consistent commitments to respect parents, affirm their values, and protect their rights.

DISCUSSION

These results show that public health nurses are sensitive to the burdens mandatory immunization education places on families, the motivations for parents' requests for nonmedical exemptions, and the values implicated by personal immunization decisions and government immunization policies. In light of the unique training, experiences, and public reputation of nurses, there is good reason for additional investigation into the roles that nurses can play in immunization education and in vaccine mandate policies, more generally.

Wanting to or having to - a qualitative study of experiences and attitudes towards migrant screening for tuberculosis in Norway

Background

This study assesses how tuberculosis (TB) screening is perceived by immigrants in Norway. Screening is mandatory for people arriving from high incidence countries. To attend screening, immigrants have to contact the health system after receiving an invitation by letter. The proportion of non-attenders is not known, and there are no sanctions for not attending. Generally, only persons who test positive receive test results. The study explores users’ experiences, attitudes and motivations for attending or not attending TB screening, and perceived barriers and enablers.

Methods

We conducted six focus group discussions and three individual interviews with 34 people from 16 countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data was coded following a general inductive approach: All transcribed text data was closely read through, salient themes were identified and categories were created and labelled. The data was read through several times and the category system was subsequently revised.

Results

Most appreciated the opportunity to be tested for a severe disease and were generally positive towards the healthcare system. At the same time, many were uncomfortable with screening, particularly due to the fear and stigma attached to TB. All experienced practical problems related to language, information, and accessing facilities. Having to ask others for help made them feel dependent and vulnerable. Positive and negative attitudes simultaneously created ambivalence. Many wanted “structuring measures” like sanctions to help attendance. Many said that not receiving results left them feeling anxious.

Conclusions

In order to adapt the system and improve trust and patient uptake, all aspects of the screening should be taken into account. Ambivalence towards screening probably has a negative impact on screening uptake and should be sought reduced. A combination of ambivalence and a wish for “structuring measures” leads the authors to conclude that mandatory screening is a reasonable measure. However, since mandatory screening negatively impacts patient autonomy, and because of fear, stigma and practical problems, the health system should empower users by improving communication and access to services. In addition, it is recommended that negative test results are also communicated to the users.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7128-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding non-vaccinating parents' views to inform and improve clinical encounters: a qualitative study in an Australian community

OBJECTIVES

To explain vaccination refusal in a sample of Australian parents.

DESIGN

Qualitative design, purposive sampling in a defined population.

SETTING

A geographically bounded community of approximately 30 000 people in regional Australia with high prevalence of vaccination refusal.

PARTICIPANTS

Semi structured interviews with 32 non-vaccinating parents: 9 fathers, 22 mothers and 1 pregnant woman. Purposive sampling of parents who had decided to discontinue or decline all vaccinations for their children. Recruitment via local advertising then snowballing.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis focused on explaining decision-making pathways of parents who refuse vaccination. Common patterns in parents' accounts included: perceived deterioration in health in Western societies; a personal experience introducing doubt about vaccine safety; concerns regarding consent; varied encounters with health professionals (dismissive, hindering and helpful); a quest for 'the real truth'; reactance to system inflexibilities and ongoing risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest responses tailored to the perspectives of non-vaccinating parents to assist professionals in understanding and maintaining empathic clinical relationships with this important patient group.

Psychosocial and demographic characteristics relating to vaccine attitudes in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Distrust in vaccination is a public health concern. In responding to vaccination distrust, the psychosocial context it occurs in needs to be accounted for. But this psychosocial context is insufficiently understood. We examined how Australians' attitudes to childhood vaccination relate to broader psychosocial characteristics pertaining to two key areas: health and government.

DESIGN

4370 Australians were surveyed and divided into five vaccine attitude groups. Logistic univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare differences in psychosocial characteristics between these groups.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that, compared to groups with positive vaccine attitudes, groups with negative attitudes were more informed, engaged and independent health consumers, with greater adherence to complementary medicine, but lower belief in holistic health. They had higher distrust in the mainstream healthcare system, higher conspiracist ideation, and were more likely to vote for minor political parties. They were more likely to be male, religious, have children, and self-report better health.

CONCLUSIONS

This research revealed HOW profiles of psychosocial characteristics differed between each of the five attitudes to childhood vaccines.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings are useful for tailoring communications about vaccination-related concerns. They also show that more granular classification and measurement of vaccine attitudes may be useful.

Raising Rates of Childhood Vaccination: The Trade-off Between Coercion and Trust

Vaccination is a highly effective public health strategy that provides protection to both individuals and communities from a range of infectious diseases. Governments monitor vaccination rates carefully, as widespread use of a vaccine within a population is required to extend protection to the general population through "herd immunity," which is important for protecting infants who are not yet fully vaccinated and others who are unable to undergo vaccination for medical or other reasons. Australia is unique in employing financial incentives to increase vaccination uptake, mainly in the form of various childcare payments and tax benefits linked to timely, age-appropriate vaccination. Despite relatively high compliance with the childhood vaccination schedule, however, the Australian government has determined that rates should be higher and has recently introduced policy that includes removing certain tax and childcare benefits for non-vaccinators and formally disallowing conscientious objection to vaccination ("No Jab No Pay"). In addition, it has raised the possibility of banning unvaccinated children from childcare centres ("No Jab No Play"). This article examines the impact of coercive approaches to childhood vaccination and raises the question of the ethical justification of health policy initiatives based on coercion. We consider the current evidence regarding childhood vaccination in Australia, the small but real risks associated with vaccination, the ethical requirement for consent for medical procedures, and the potential social harms of targeting non-vaccinators. We conclude that the evidence does not support a move to an increasingly mandatory approach that could only be delivered through paternalistic, coercive clinical practices.

The evolution of immunization waiver education in Michigan: A qualitative study of vaccine educators

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Michigan implemented an education requirement for parents who requested nonmedical exemptions from school or daycare immunization mandates. Michigan required parents to receive education from public health staff, unlike other states, whose vaccine education requirements could be completed online or at physicians' offices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Results of focus group interviews with 39 of Michigan's vaccine waiver educators, conducted during 2016 and 2017, were analyzed to identify themes describing educators' experiences of waiver education. The core theme that emerged from the data was that educators changed their perception of the purpose of waiver education, from convincing vaccine-refusing parents to vaccinate their children to promoting more diffuse and forward-looking goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Michigan, and other communities that require vaccine waiver education, ought to investigate whether and how waiver education contributes to public health goals other than short-term vaccination compliance. Research shows that education requirements can decrease nonmedical exemption rates by discouraging some parents from applying for exemptions, but further studies are needed to identify ways in which waiver education can promote other public health goals, while minimizing costs and burdens on staff.

Measles Vaccination is Best for Children: The Argument for Relying on Herd Immunity Fails

This article examines an argument which may negatively influence measles vaccination uptake. According to the argument, an individual child in a highly vaccinated society may be better off by being non-vaccinated; the child does not risk vaccine adverse effects and is protected against measles through herd immunity. Firstly, the conclusion of the argument is challenged by showing that herd immunity's protection is unreliable and inferior to vaccination. Secondly, the logic of the argument is challenged by showing that the argument is inherently self-defeating and therefore logically inconsistent. In practice the argument cannot be used to protect children against measles. Measles vaccination is undoubtedly best for children, even in highly vaccinated societies. Only if a medical contraindication to vaccination exists should vaccination be waived in favour of reliance on herd immunity. This places obligations on those who stand in care relationships with the child: parents, healthcare providers, and the state.

Liberty, Fairness and the ‘Contribution Model’ for Non-medical Vaccine Exemption Policies: A Reply to Navin and Largent

In a paper recently published in this journal, Navin and Largent argue in favour of a type of policy to regulate non-medical exemptions from childhood vaccination which they call ‘Inconvenience’. This policy makes it burdensome for parents to obtain an exemption to child vaccination, for example, by requiring parents to attend immunization education sessions and to complete an application form to receive a waiver. Navin and Largent argue that this policy is preferable to ‘Eliminationism’, i.e. to policies that do not allow non-medical exemptions, because Inconvenience has been shown to maintain exemption rates low while not harming parents by forcing them to do something that goes against their beliefs. We argue that it is at least doubtful that Inconvenience is ethically preferable to Eliminationism: while the latter disregards the value of liberty, Inconvenience disregards the value of fairness in the distribution of the burdens entailed by the preservation of a public good like herd immunity. We propose a variant of Inconvenience, which we call ‘Contribution’, which we think is preferable to the versions of Inconvenience discussed by Navin and Largent in that it successfully strikes a balance between the values of parents’ liberty, fairness and expected utility.

What arguments on vaccinations run through YouTube videos in Italy? A content analysis

Background: The suspension of compulsory scheduling of some pediatric vaccines has been discussed for a long time by health authorities in Italy but the current decrease of vaccination rates is a matter of concern. YouTube is the most popular video-based social media website. Considering the demonstrated impact of internet on vaccination decision-making and the increasing use of social media to share and disseminate health information, the aim of this study was to explore the message available on YouTube videos about vaccination.

Methods: An observational study was conducted searching for YouTube videos in September 2015 and updated in January 2016, by using the keyword “vaccinations.” We included recently posted videos in Italian on child vaccination (2014–2015). Videos were classified according to the message tone.

Results: A total of 123 videos were selected. Pro-vaccination videos were 62 (50%), anti-vaccination 28 (23%), neutral or without a clear position in favor or against vaccination 33 (27%). Focusing on the first 2 groups, pro-vaccination videos had a higher number of views compared with those unfavorable (1602 ± 6544 vs 1482 ± 2735) (p < 0.001). However, anti-vaccination videos were liked more by viewers (17.8 ± 31.3) than positive ones (13.2 ± 44.7) (p < 0.001) in addition to being more shared (23 ± 22.6 vs 3.8 ± 5.5, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Most of the videos were positive in tone, but those that disapproved of immunization were the most liked and shared. Considering the growing number of viewers, it is important to monitor the web to understand audience characteristics and what influences public opinions to use communication strategies more effectively.