What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives

COVID-19 vaccine refusal as unfair free-riding

Contributions to COVID-19 vaccination programmes promise valuable collective goods. They can support public and individual health by creating herd immunity and taking the pressure off overwhelmed public health services; support freedom of movement by enabling governments to remove restrictive lockdown policies; and improve economic and social well-being by allowing businesses, schools, and other essential public services to re-open. The vaccinated can contribute to the production of these goods. The unvaccinated, who benefit from, but who do not contribute to these goods can be morally criticised as free-riders. In this paper defends the claim that in the case of COVID-19, the unvaccinated are unfair free-riders. I defend the claim against two objections. First, that they are not unfair free-riders because they lack the subjective attitudes and intentions of free-riders; second, that although the unvaccinated may be free-riders, their free-riding is not unfair.

Parental perceptions of chickenpox and the varicella vaccine: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

In countries where varicella vaccination is not on the routine childhood immunisation schedule, such as those in the United Kingdom (UK), chickenpox is an almost universal disease of childhood. Chickenpox can cause serious complications, particularly in infants, pregnant women, and the immunocompromised. In November 2023 the varicella vaccine was recommended for inclusion in the UK routine childhood immunisation schedule. Successful rollout of the vaccine may be hindered by parental concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, and perceptions of chickenpox as a mild illness.

OBJECTIVE

To examine parental perceptions of chickenpox and varicella vaccination, which may be crucial to effective vaccination campaigns.

DESIGN

Qualitative systematic review and thematic analysis.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published between 2016 and 2023: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science. The included studies were appraised against the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies. Thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data, through the development of themes.

RESULTS

22 articles were included in this review, and five themes identified: perceptions that chickenpox is a mild illness, that parents have concerns about varicella vaccine efficacy and safety, a notion of natural immunity as superior, social determinants of health influence vaccine decision making, and vaccination is overwhelming perceived as a parental decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst some parents displayed an acceptance and willingness to vaccinate against chickenpox, many expressed concerns, and perceived chickenpox as a routine unworrying childhood illness. Analysis demonstrated a knowledge gap in understanding UK parental opinions regarding chickenpox and varicella vaccination, highlighting the need for research in this area, particularly given ongoing reconsideration for inclusion in the UK vaccination schedule.

REGISTRATION

The review was registered on PROSPERO, registration ID CRD42021236120.

Vaccine Lines and Line Jumpers: Mapping a New Metaphor from an Interview-Based Study about COVID Vaccination

This article considers how the metaphor of the vaccine line and the subjectivity of the line jumper came to frame COVID vaccination experiences. Drawing on analysis of interviews (n = 24) with self-identified vaccine line jumpers, this article reports on three narratives that arose across interviews: (1) vaccine line jumping is a necessary strategy of health-advocacy, (2) vaccines are personal healthcare tools earned through individual merit, and (3) vaccine refusal is a problem of belief rather than access. Findings advance research about the personalization of vaccination and public health while contributing insights about the constrained subjectivities that people adopt in individualistic health landscapes.

Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents' views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination.

OBJECTIVES

- Explore parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents' or caregivers' views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income-level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta-ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination identified by this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 145 studies in the review and sampled 27 of these for our analysis. Six studies were conducted in Africa, seven in the Americas, four in South-East Asia, nine in Europe, and one in the Western Pacific. Studies included urban and rural settings, and high-, middle-, and low-income settings. Many complex factors were found to influence parents' vaccination views and practices, which we divided into four themes. Firstly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their broader ideas and practices surrounding health and illness generally, and specifically with regards to their children, and their perceptions of the role of vaccination within this context. Secondly, many parents' vaccination ideas and practices were influenced by the vaccination ideas and practices of the people they mix with socially. At the same time, shared vaccination ideas and practices helped some parents establish social relationships, which in turn strengthened their views and practices around vaccination. Thirdly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by wider political issues and concerns, and particularly their trust (or distrust) in those associated with vaccination programmes. Finally, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their access to and experiences of vaccination services and their frontline healthcare workers. We developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccination. The first concept, 'neoliberal logic', suggests that many parents, particularly from high-income countries, understood health and healthcare decisions as matters of individual risk, choice, and responsibility. Some parents experienced this understanding as in conflict with vaccination programmes, which emphasise generalised risk and population health. This perceived conflict led some parents to be less accepting of vaccination for their children. The second concept, 'social exclusion', suggests that some parents, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, were less accepting of childhood vaccination due to their experiences of social exclusion. Social exclusion may damage trustful relationships between government and the public, generate feelings of isolation and resentment, and give rise to demotivation in the face of public services that are poor quality and difficult to access. These factors in turn led some parents who were socially excluded to distrust vaccination, to refuse vaccination as a form of resistance or a way to bring about change, or to avoid vaccination due to the time, costs, and distress it creates. Many of the overarching factors our review identified as influencing parents' vaccination views and practices were underrepresented in the interventions tested in the four related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review has revealed that parents' views and practices regarding childhood vaccination are complex and dynamic social processes that reflect multiple webs of influence, meaning, and logic. We have provided a theorised understanding of the social processes contributing to vaccination acceptance (or not), thereby complementing but also extending more individualistic models of vaccination acceptance. Successful development of interventions to promote acceptance and uptake of childhood vaccination will require an understanding of, and then tailoring to, the specific factors influencing vaccination views and practices of the group(s) in the target setting. The themes and concepts developed through our review could serve as a basis for gaining this understanding, and subsequent development of interventions that are potentially more aligned with the norms, expectations, and concerns of target users.

Implementation of a Service-Learning Project Focused on Handwashing and Vaccinations Within an Undergraduate Microbiology Laboratory Course

Two relevant topics in keeping populations healthy are handwashing and vaccinations. Thus, the service-learning project titled "We Are Healthy" campaign was introduced within a microbiology laboratory course with two objectives; our biologists would better understand the importance of these actions by designing activities that engage the student community and to obtain an understanding of the campus community's behaviors and beliefs concerning these topics. Students designed the campaign to include handwashing stations, pictures of bacterial cultures from swabbing common surfaces, and trivia questions testing their peers' knowledge of various vaccines, as well as handwashing and vaccination surveys. To assess the impact of the campaign on microbiology students (n = 34), they were provided 10 questions that were scored on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Student gains (score > 3) were reported for depth in knowledge, development of better public speaking skills, and greater respect for volunteers suggesting that the campaign was beneficial. This study subsequently led to the receiving of grants that allowed the continuation of the campaign within the course, the securing of funding for handwashing and hand sanitizing stations and the initiation of new undergraduate research projects.

Understanding the messages and motivation of vaccine hesitant or refusing social media influencers

BACKGROUND

While anti-vaccine messages on social media have been studied for content, reach, and effectiveness, less is known about those who create and promote the messages. Online influencers, or 'everyday people who are influential within their online social networks', are viewed as trusted voices who are often making similar life decisions as their followers. Therefore, their experiences with and perspectives on health issues can be persuasive.

METHODS

We collaborated with a formal network of online influencers to interview, using a semi-structured interview guide, vaccine hesitant influencer mothers about their views on vaccination; their process for developing health-related social media content; their motivation to promote anti-vaccine messages; and their opinions on current vaccination messaging. Prescreening ensured a diverse sample by race/ethnicity, age, education, number of children, and geographic residence. Interviews occurred by telephone, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Themes were generated independently by two coders using a deductive coding approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 online influencer mothers from across the U.S. (average age 39 years old; all married; 13 Caucasian, 1 African American, 1 Hispanic). In some capacity, 5 of the 15 wrote about vaccination on their blog. Those who chose not to post anti-vaccine content did so for fear of alienating followers or having their platform be the site of combative discourse among readers. When researching their social media posts, the influencers did not trust mainstream sources of health information and relied on alternative sources and search engines.

IMPLICATIONS

This exploratory study interviewed influential mothers who have the ability to spread anti-vaccine messages on social media. While most do not contribute to the anti-vaccine sentiment, understanding the motivation and practices of those that do assists the public health community in better understanding the online vaccination communication environment, leading to more effective messages to counterbalance anti-vaccine content on social media.

Decision making processes underlying avoidance of mandatory child vaccination in Croatia - a qualitative study

Despite extensive research evidencing child vaccination is safe and effective, we are witnessing a trend of increasing vaccine hesitancy which is listed among the top ten global health threats. Although some countries incorporate mandatory vaccination programs, no particularly efficient strategies for addressing vaccine avoidance have so far been identified. Within this study we investigated perceptions and reasoning of vaccine hesitant parents from Croatia where child vaccination is mandatory. The aims were to reveal different strategies by which they avoid mandatory vaccination schedules and hypothetical situations in which they would reconsider vaccinating, as well as to identify features of related decision-making. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with vaccine hesitant parents and analyzed the data using the framework of thematic analyses. The identified themes were related to the parents’ decision-making process, reflection as well as justification of their decision, avoidance behavior of mandatory vaccination schedules and related consequences, dealing with outcomes of the decision and reconsidering vaccinating. The results support and extend previous findings regarding vaccine reasoning, linking hesitancy with the experientially intuitive thinking style and social intuitionist model of moral reasoning. The findings provide important insights into vaccination avoidance and potential for reconsideration, as well as dealing with related risks. Furthermore, we offer a general framework as well as practical guidelines that may help the development of strategies aimed at increasing vaccination rates.

Interacting with parents in Sweden who hesitate or refrain from vaccinating their child

The purpose of this study was to explore nurses' experiences of encountering parents who are hesitant about or refrain from vaccinating their child. A qualitative approach was chosen and data collected through individual, semi-structured interviews with 12 nurses. The text was analyzed using thematic analysis. Three themes emerged from the interviews: giving room and time for acknowledging parents' insecurity concerning vaccination, striving to approach the parents' position with tact, and a struggle between feelings of failure and respect for the parents' view. The findings indicate that it was crucial to give time, be tactful when meeting parents, as well as to appear credible and up-to-date. The nurses wanted to be open and respect the parents' views on vaccination but found it difficult and frustrating to be unable to reach out with their message because their quest was to protect the child.

Optimal public health intervention in a behavioural vaccination model: the interplay between seasonality, behaviour and latency period

Hesitancy and refusal of vaccines preventing childhood diseases are spreading due to 'pseudo-rational' behaviours: parents overweigh real and imaginary side effects of vaccines. Nonetheless, the 'Public Health System' (PHS) may enact public campaigns to favour vaccine uptake. To determine the optimal time profiles for such campaigns, we apply the optimal control theory to an extension of the susceptible-infectious-removed (SIR)-based behavioural vaccination model by d'Onofrio et al. (2012, PLoS ONE, 7, e45653). The new model is of susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) type under seasonal fluctuations of the transmission rate. Our objective is to minimize the total costs of the disease: the disease burden, the vaccination costs and a less usual cost: the economic burden to enact the PHS campaigns. We apply the Pontryagin minimum principle and numerically explore the impact of seasonality, human behaviour and latency rate on the control and spread of the target disease. We focus on two noteworthy case studies: the low (resp. intermediate) relative perceived risk of vaccine side effects and relatively low (resp. very low) speed of imitation. One general result is that seasonality may produce a remarkable impact on PHS campaigns aimed at controlling, via an increase of the vaccination uptake, the spread of a target infectious disease. In particular, a higher amplitude of the seasonal variation produces a higher effort and this, in turn, beneficially impacts the induced vaccine uptake since the larger is the strength of seasonality, the longer the vaccine propensity remains large. However, such increased effort is not able to fully compensate the action of seasonality on the prevalence.

Studying Public Perception about Vaccination: A Sentiment Analysis of Tweets

Text analysis has been used by scholars to research attitudes toward vaccination and is particularly timely due to the rise of medical misinformation via social media. This study uses a sample of 9581 vaccine-related tweets in the period January 1, 2019 to April 5, 2019. The time period is of the essence because during this time, a measles outbreak was prevalent throughout the United States and a public debate was raging. Sentiment analysis is applied to the sample, clustering the data into topics using the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) technique. The analyses suggest that most (about 77%) of the tweets focused on the search for new/better vaccines for diseases such as the Ebola virus, human papillomavirus (HPV), and the flu. Of the remainder, about half concerned the recent measles outbreak in the United States, and about half were part of ongoing debates between supporters and opponents of vaccination against measles in particular. While these numbers currently suggest a relatively small role for vaccine misinformation, the concept of herd immunity puts that role in context. Nevertheless, going forward, health experts should consider the potential for the increasing spread of falsehoods that may get firmly entrenched in the public mind.

It just doesn't feel right - the relevance of emotions and intuition for parental vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination uptake

Objective: Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the major contributors to child under-vaccination. Research indicates that some hesitant parents' mistrust extends to specific conspiracy ideation, but research on vaccine conspiracy beliefs is still scarce. Our objective was to explore factors contributing to parental vaccine conspiracy beliefs and actual vaccine uptake in children.Design: A cross-sectional correlational design with a non-probabilistic sample of 823 volunteer participants surveyed online.Main outcome measures: We focussed on the contributions of the analytically rational and experientially intuitive thinking styles, as well as measures of emotional functioning, namely optimism and emotions towards vaccination, to vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccine uptake as outcomes.Results: The obtained results showed that greater vaccine conspiracy beliefs were associated with stronger unpleasant emotions towards vaccination and greater experientially intuitive thinking, as well as lower levels of education. Furthermore, unpleasant emotions towards vaccination and intuitive thinking were associated with vaccine refusal.Conclusion: These findings confirm the primary importance of emotions, along with the propensity towards intuitive thinking, in the context of vaccine conspiracy beliefs and refusal, supporting the notion that parents' avoidance is guided by their affect. These results have direct implications for addressing vaccine hesitancy within public campaigns and policies.

Beliefs around childhood vaccines in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

While childhood vaccines are safe and effective, some parents remain hesitant to vaccinate their children, which has led to outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. The goal of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the range of beliefs around childhood vaccines elicited using open-ended questions, which are better suited for discovering beliefs compared to closed-ended questions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched using keywords for childhood vaccines, decision makers, beliefs, and attitudes to identify studies that collected primary data using a variety of open-ended questions regarding routine childhood vaccine beliefs in the United States. Study designs, population characteristics, vaccine types, and vaccine beliefs were abstracted. We conducted a qualitative analysis to conceptualize beliefs into themes and generated descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1727 studies identified, 71 were included, focusing largely on parents (including in general, and those who were vaccine hesitant or at risk of hesitancy). Seven themes emerged: Adverse effects was most prominent, followed by mistrust, perceived lack of necessity, pro-vaccine opinions, skepticism about effectiveness, desire for autonomy, and morality concerns. The most commonly described beliefs included that vaccines can cause illnesses; a child's immune system can be overwhelmed if receiving too many vaccines at once; vaccines contain harmful ingredients; younger children are more susceptible to vaccine adverse events; the purpose of vaccines is profit-making; and naturally developed immunity is better than that acquired from vaccines. Nearly a third of the studies exclusively assessed minority populations, and more than half of the studies examined beliefs only regarding HPV vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies used open-ended questions to elicit beliefs about vaccines. Many of the studies that did so, focused on HPV vaccine. Concerns about vaccine safety were the most commonly stated beliefs about childhood vaccines, likely because studies were designed to capture barriers and challenges to vaccination.

Determining optimal community protection strategies for the influenza vaccine

Introduction: Seasonal influenza poses a major risk to the health of the population. Optimal strategies for influenza vaccination can help to reduce this risk. Areas covered: Systematic evaluations of the burden of influenza are first reviewed. Key meta-analysis, randomized trials, and observational studies are critically reviewed to provide the best estimates of the efficacy of influenza vaccine. The concept of herd effect is first introduced and this is followed by the rationale and the evidence to support herd effect that can be provided with strategic use of influenza vaccination in populations. Challenges including the effect of repeated influenza vaccination and vaccine hesitancy are reviewed. The citations were selected by the authors based on PubMed searches of the literature. Expert opinion: Efforts to develop new vaccines, including a universal vaccine, offer the best prospects for improved herd effect. Increasing uptake in new populations can increase likelihood of a herd effect.

Do traditional economic theories of free riding behavior explain spatial clustering of HPV vaccine uptake?

Rationale

Geographic clusters of low vaccination uptake reduce the population-level efficacy of vaccination programs. However, little is known about the mechanisms that drive geographic patterns in vaccination rates. Traditional economic theory considers vaccination as a classic public good and suggests that free riding-individuals taking advantage of public goods by relying on others' immunization behavior without contributing toward them-is a primary cause of low vaccination rates. However, behavioral economics suggests that free riding does not fully explain observed individual behavior, and the presence of both high and low clusters of vaccination rates suggest that this theory alone does not fully explain geographic patterns of vaccination.

Objective

We assessed geographic clustering of HPV vaccination uptake and examined the evidence for or against free riding in HPV vaccination decisions.

Methods

We analyzed HPV vaccination decisions of low-income adolescent females (N = 601) residing in urban neighborhoods in Dallas, Texas, USA during 2011-2012. Spatial econometric models were estimated to assess the relationship between neighborhood vaccination rates and individual vaccination decisions.

Results

We found a positive and significant relationship between individual HPV vaccination choices and the average neighborhood vaccination rate at the time parents were making vaccine decisions for their adolescent daughters while controlling for neighborhood sorting and other confounders.

Conclusion

Individuals were more likely to complete the HPV vaccination series when others in their neighborhood had already completed the series. We do not find evidence for free riding in HPV vaccination decisions.

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.

The politics of picking: Selective vaccinators and population-level policy

•Public health systems face tensions between individuals and the collective•Parents who selectively vaccinate demonstrate this tension•Parents in this study want vaccination programs to run differently•Implementing their wishes could put the system at risk.

Re-imagining global health through social medicine

The conceptual and practical work done by social medicine and global health have often overlapped. In this paper, we argue that new efforts to apprehend 'the social' in social medicine offer important insights to global health along five lines of critical analysis: (1) reconfigurations of the state and new forms of political activism, (2) philanthrocapitalism and the economisation of life, (3) The economy of attention, (4) anthropogenic climate change, and (5) the geopolitics of North and South.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires an ethically consistent health strategy

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to public health. The reasons are complex but linked inextricably to a lack of trust in vaccines, expertise and traditional sources of authority. Efforts to increase immunization uptake in children in many countries that have seen a fall in vaccination rates are two-fold: addressing hesitancy by improving healthcare professional-parent exchange and information provision in the clinic; and, secondly, public health strategies that can override parental concerns and values with coercive measures such as mandatory and presumptive vaccination.

MAIN TEXT

It is argued that such conflicting, parallel approaches seriously risk undermining trust that is crucial for sustaining herd immunity. Although public health strategies can be ethically justified in limiting freedoms, a parent-centered approach seldom acknowledges how it is impacted by contemporaneous coercive measures. In addition, the clinical encounter is not well suited to helping parents consider the public dimensions of vaccination, despite these being important for trust formation and informed decision-making. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy require more consistent engagement of parental and citizen views. Along with evidence-based information, debates need to be informed by ethical support that equips parents and professionals to respond to the private and public dimensions of vaccination in a more even-handed, transparent manner.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy need to avoid simple reliance on either parental values or coercive public policies. To do this effectively requires increasing citizen engagement on vaccination to help inform a parent-centered approach and legitimize public policy measures. In addition, cultivating a more ethically consistent strategy means moving beyond the current silos of health ethics - clinical and public health ethics.

Examining the "why" of vaccine hesitancy

Comments on the original article by Hornsey and colleagues (see record 2018-03974-001) which present findings on a 24-nation survey of the underlying roots of vaccine hesitancy and antivaccination attitudes. Their findings provide a solid foundation on which to build the next generation of research into vaccine communication and ways to address vaccine hesitancy. Where do we go from here? Although the work of Hornsey et al. (2018) is a good first step, their primary outcome was vaccination attitudes. Future research is needed to evaluate these findings in the context of actual vaccine uptake. (PsycINFO Database Record

'The Unhealthy Other': How vaccine rejecting parents construct the vaccinating mainstream

To address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy and rejection, researchers increasingly recognise the need to engage with the social context of parents' decision-making. This study examines how vaccine rejecting parents socially construct the vaccinating mainstream in opposition to themselves. We analyse qualitative data from interviews with parents in Adelaide, South Australia. Applying insights from Social Identity Theory (SIT), we show how these parents bolster their own sense of identity and self-belief by employing a discourse that casts vaccinators as an Unhealthy Other. We demonstrate how the parents identify vaccination as a marker of parental conformity to the 'toxic practices of mass industrial society', linking it to other ways in which membership of the consumerist mainstream requires individuals to 'neglect their health.' This is explored through themes of appearance, diet, (over) consumption of pharmaceuticals, inadequate parenting values and wilful or misguided ignorance. This construction of the Unhealthy Other elevates the self-concept of vaccine hesitant and rejecting parents, who see themselves as part of an enlightened, but constantly besieged, group of healthy and virtuous parents. It is common for the vaccinating mainstream to present vaccine hesitant and rejecting parents as a group subject to epistemic closure, groupthink, confirmation bias and over-confidence in their own expertise. However, vaccine hesitant and rejecting parents also see mainstream society as a group-a much larger one-subject to the same problems. We suggest the need to mitigate the 'groupness' of vaccination and non-vaccination by extending the practice of vaccination to recognisable practitioners of holistic health.

Understanding the perceived logic of care by vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-refusing parents: A qualitative study in Australia

In terms of public health, childhood vaccination programs have benefits that far outweigh risks. However, some parents decide not to vaccinate their children. This paper explores the ways in which such parents talked about the perceived risks and benefits incurred by vaccinating (or not vaccinating) their children. Between 2013–2016 we undertook 29 in-depth interviews with non-vaccinating and/or ‘vaccine hesitant’ parents in Australia. Interviews were conducted in an open and non-judgmental manner, akin to empathic neutrality. Interviews focused on parents talking about the factors that shaped their decisions not to (or partially) vaccinate their children. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using both inductive and deductive processes. The main themes focus on parental perceptions of: 1. their capacity to reason; 2. their rejection of Western medical epistemology; and 3. their participation in labour intensive parenting practices (which we term salutogenic parenting). Parents engaged in an ongoing search for information about how best to parent their children (capacity to reason), which for many led to questioning/distrust of traditional scientific knowledge (rejection of Western medical epistemology). Salutogenic parenting spontaneously arose in interviews, whereby parents practised health promoting activities which they saw as boosting the natural immunity of their children and protecting them from illness (reducing or negating the perceived need for vaccinations). Salutogenic parenting practices included breastfeeding, eating organic and/or home-grown food, cooking from scratch to reduce preservative consumption and reducing exposure to toxins. We interpret our data as a ‘logic of care’, which is seen by parents as internally consistent, logically inter-related and inter-dependent. Whilst not necessarily sharing the parents’ reasoning, we argue that an understanding of their attitudes towards health and well-being is imperative for any efforts to engage with their vaccine refusal at a policy level.