"We are fierce, independent thinkers and intelligent": Social capital and stigma management among mothers who refuse vaccines

Esoteric beliefs and CAM impact SARS-CoV-2 immunization drivers, uptake and pediatric immunization views in Germany

Recent studies demonstrate that sociopolitical attitudes partially explain variance in (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Other attitudes, such as those towards esoteric beliefs, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and religion, have also been proposed. However, pertinent studies provide limited direction for public health efforts, as the impact of such attitudes has been tested in isolation or on different outcomes. Moreover, related associations between SARS-CoV-2 immunization drivers as well as views towards other modes of immunization (e.g., routine pediatric immunization), remain unclear. Based on a sample of ~7400 survey participants (Germany), where esoteric belief systems and CAM (Waldorf, homeopathy) are rather prevalent, and controlling for other sociological factors, we found that (i) individuals with positive attitudes towards Waldorf education and homeopathy are significantly less likely to have received a (further) dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine compared to those with positive views of mainstream medicine; (ii) for the former, immunization decisions are primarily driven by external pressures, and for the latter overwhelmingly by voluntary considerations; (iii) attitudes influencing adult SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake similarly influence views towards routine pediatric immunization. Our findings provide significant evidence informing a more nuanced design of public health and communication campaigns, and pertinent policies.

Cosmetic Medical Tourists' Use of Online Support Communities: Sharing Information, Reciprocity, and Enduring Relationships

Cosmetic procedures are amongst the most popular procedures sought after by medical tourists. Cosmetic medical tourists utilise numerous sources of information when planning their trips including, where available, discussing their decision with previous medical tourists. Current research on online support communities has investigated the interactions of patients with various health conditions with online support; however, limited research exists on cosmetic medical tourists' participation in online support communities. Here we report findings from our qualitative interview study of Australian cosmetic medical tourists. We found that many of our participants experienced stigma regarding their intention to receive cosmetic procedures and to travel overseas from within their local social networks. Participating in online communities (Facebook groups) enabled them to access information and support from other cosmetic medical tourists. Through using public posting and messaging functionality of the communities, they performed two distinct roles in the groups that parallel the temporal transitions of their journeys: they were information and support seekers pre-surgery and information and support providers post-surgery. The reciprocity they practiced in the provider role occurred due to their desire to 'pay forward' the support they had received from others pre-surgery. This role was performed as a collective, community-based reciprocity rather than a direct mutual exchange. Some participants also transitioned their online relationships into enduing offline friendships demonstrating how online interactions may become enmeshed with broader social networks.

How a 'good parent' decides on childhood vaccination. Demonstrating independence and deliberation during Dutch healthcare visits

Childhood vaccination consultations are considered an important phase in parents' decision-making process. To date, only a few empirical studies conducted in the United States have investigated real-life consultations. To address this gap, we recorded Dutch vaccination conversations between healthcare providers and parents during routine health consultations for their newborns. The data were analysed using Conversation Analysis and Discursive Psychology. We found that the topic of vaccination was often initiated with 'Have you already thought about vaccination?' (HYATAV), and that this formulation was consequential for parental identity work. Exploring the interactional trajectories engendered by this initiation format we show that: (1) interlocutors treat the question as consisting of two types of queries, (2) conversational trajectories differ according to which of the queries is attended to and that (3) parents work up a 'good parent' identity in response to HYATAV, by demonstrating that they think about their child's vaccination beforehand and make their decisions independently. Our findings shed new light on the interactional unfolding of parental vaccination decisions.

Dying to Fit In: How Interpersonal Networks Shape COVID-19 Health Outcomes Through Discussion and Social Norms

Research has repeatedly demonstrated the ability of social networks, interpersonal discussion, and perceived social norms to shape health-related outcomes. There are still substantial gaps, however, in understanding the theoretical mechanism that holds these components together, as well as the boundary conditions of their effects. Employing ego-network analysis with a representative sample of Illinois residents (N = 711) and focusing on the context of COVID-19 vaccine adherence, this study constructs a comprehensive framework to examine the direct, indirect, and conditional relationships linking social capital within networks, factual knowledge, and vaccination. Overall, the results point to the ability of tight-knit networks to influence knowledge and behavior for better or worse, depending on the composition of the network and its conversational valence. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

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.

COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Mediates the Relationship between Health Literacy and Vaccination in a Diverse Sample of Urban Adults

We sought to analyze the relationship between health literacy, confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and self-reported vaccination. We hypothesized that the relationship between health literacy and vaccination would be mediated by vaccine confidence. We recruited (N = 271) English- and Spanish-speaking adults in Boston and Chicago from September 2018 to September 2021. We performed a probit mediation analysis to determine if confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and health literacy predicted self-reported vaccination. We hypothesized that the relationship between health literacy and vaccination would be mediated by vaccine confidence. Participants were on average 50 years old, 65% female, 40% non-Hispanic Black, 25% Hispanic, and 30% non-Hispanic White; 231 (85%) reported at least one COVID-19 vaccination. A higher mean vaccine confidence score (t = -7.9, p < 0.001) and higher health literacy (t = -2.2, p = 0.03) were associated with vaccination, but only vaccine confidence predicted vaccination in a multivariate model. Vaccine confidence mediated the relationship between health literacy and COVID-19 vaccination (mediated effects: 0.04; 95% CI [0.02, 0.08]). We found that using a simple tool to measure vaccine confidence identified people who declined or delayed COVID-19 vaccination in a diverse sample of adults with varying levels of health literacy. Simple short survey tools can be useful to identify people who may benefit from vaccine promotion efforts and evidence-based communication strategies.

Trust, individualism, and the logics of care in middle America during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Polarization and turf-wars have characterized the COVID-19 response in the United States. While COVID-19 narratives can be binary and divisive, how people cared for each other throughout the first year of the pandemic is more nuanced. This article describes how and why constructs of fear, individualism, wellbeing, and personal risk-taking became imbued in behaviors that thwarted the risk of the collective. This work is based on informal conversations, public forums, and 86 in-depth interviews during the 2020 summer in a small tourist town in northwest Iowa. Some believed engaging in public health prevention was not their responsibility and instead privileged their personal enjoyment, finances, or mental health over others, de-emphasizing personal risk and stating God will protect them. Others were deeply committed to public health prevention, by staying home, masking, and social distancing. In both cases, people used shame to promote their views (e.g., shame on you for masking/unmasking!) as well as fear (e.g., I do/don't fear coronavirus because I am virtuous). However, most engaged in logics of care, navigating what public health precautions to follow to protect themselves and those they loved most. Yet, such decisions were navigated through a culture of individualism and ideals of personal responsibility that cultivated a mistrust in public health. Understanding how and why such individualism took hold in American publics is a crucial inflection point for policy-making as well as cultural interpretation of why and how people construct risk and responsibility.

Touching the cornerstone: An illustrative example of the effects of stigma and discrimination on vaccine-hesitant parents

Objectives

The concept of vaccine hesitancy encompasses multiple views on the subject. However, there has been an increasing polarization of the discourse on vaccine hesitancy leading to the stigmatization of those parents who expressed doubts or concerns regarding vaccination practices. The present study aimed to explore the drivers and consequences of polarized discourses on vaccination in the Portuguese context. This paper is part of a broader study which aims to gain a deeper understanding about the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy at the European level.

Study design

A qualitative research design was used.

Methods

The sample was comprised of thirty-one Portuguese vaccine hesitant parents who were interviewed. A thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was performed which allowed us to identify key themes.

Results

The results showed that the labelling of vaccine-hesitant parents as 'anti-vaxxers' along with social media play a crucial role in promoting the polarization of vaccine-related attitudes. The stigmatization of vaccine hesitant parents has a disruptive impact on their social network leading them to search for online platforms where they can exchange vaccines-related information without being discriminated.

Conclusions

The stigma and discrimination experienced by vaccine-hesitant parents stimulated that hesitancy becomes more entrenched. Therefore, pluralism should be used to tailor vaccination promotion campaigns to different targets, promoting its reach and efficacy.

Obscured inequity: How focusing on rates of disparities can conceal inequities in the reasons why adolescents are unvaccinated

Traditional sociodemographic disparities in adolescent vaccination initiation for the HPV, Tdap, and MenACWY vaccines have declined in the United States of America. This decline raises the question of whether inequities in access have been successfully addressed. This paper synthesizes research on the resource barriers that inhibit vaccination alongside research on vaccine hesitancy where parents actively refuse vaccination. To do so, I classify the primary reason why teens are unvaccinated in the National Immunization Survey-Teen 2012-2022 into three categories: resource failure, agentic refusal, and other reasons. I use three non-exclusive subsamples of teens who are unvaccinated against the HPV (N = 87,163), MenACWY (N = 54,726), and Tdap (N = 10,947) vaccines to examine the relative importance of resource failure reasons and agentic refusal reasons for non-vaccination across time and teens' sociodemographic characteristics. Results indicate that resource failure reasons continue to explain a substantial portion of the reasons why teens are unvaccinated and disproportionately affect racially/ethnically and economically marginalized teens. Thus, even as sociodemographic inequalities in rates of vaccination have declined, inequities in access remain consequential.

Recruiting a Hard-to-Reach, Hidden and Vulnerable Population: The Methodological and Practical Pitfalls of Researching Vaccine-Hesitant Parents

While recruitment is an essential aspect of any research project, its challenges are rarely acknowledged. We intend to address this gap by discussing the challenges to the participation of vaccine-hesitant parents defined here as a hard-to-reach, hidden and vulnerable population drawing on extensive empirical qualitative evidence from seven European countries. The difficulties in reaching vaccine-hesitant parents were very much related to issues concerning trust, as there appears to be a growing distrust in experts, which is extended to the work developed by researchers and their funding bodies. These difficulties have been accentuated by the public debate around COVID-19 vaccination, as it seems to have increased parents' hesitancy to participate. Findings from recruiting 167 vaccine-hesitant parents in seven European countries suggest that reflexive and sensible recruitment approaches should be developed.

Knowledge, Beliefs, and Behaviors of Turkish Parents about Childhood Vaccination

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Vaccination is critical to the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks and is also one of the most important public health successes. When it comes to childhood vaccinations, parents' consent is very important. For this reason, childhood vaccination rates are directly related to the knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors of the parents. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors of parents of children aged 0-5 regarding childhood vaccinations and how these beliefs affect their vaccination behaviors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted on 302 parents from February to June 2020. Data were collected using a questionnaire form with 26 questions. Sociodemographic characteristics were reported as frequencies, means, and percentages. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to evaluate vaccination behaviors and affective factors.

RESULTS

About 87.1% of the parents know that vaccines protect their children from infectious diseases, and 76.8% know that vaccines can have side effects. Although 97.7% of the parents had their children fully vaccinated according to the Extended Immunization Program, 2.3% did not vaccinate their children. Moreover, 98% of the parents trust the information given by healthcare professionals about vaccination. The parents' beliefs explain 53% (R2 = 0.53) of the parents' child vaccination behavior.

CONCLUSION

This study found that although the knowledge level of parents about vaccines is quite good, negative knowledge and beliefs that may affect vaccination also exist. Considered by parents as a reliable source of information, healthcare professionals should impart their knowledge, beliefs, and concerns regarding immunization.

Cultural discourses and HIV/AIDS activists' meanings about PrEP

Since the approval of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in 2012, research has increasingly considered how communities of men who have sex with men make sense of this prevention technology, often highlighting individual-level attitudes about PrEP. Drawing on interviews with 16 HIV activists, this study aimed to determine how activists make sense of advances in HIV prevention technology. Participants' sense-making about PrEP took the form of not merely the expression of individual attitudes, but rather reflections connected to their personal biographies and activist experience. Activists sustain seemingly contradictory discourses about PrEP, at once drawing on personal biographies and a discourse central to activist history to express scepticism about PrEP, but also other discourses to justify pharmaceutical intervention for prevention. Study findings provide evidence of the importance of attending to past and present cultural discourses when examining health advocacy groups' constructions of advances in science.

'I'm provax': Pro-vaccination personal histories and socialities of older Australians in the COVID-19 pandemic

Vaccination scholarship often explores how social networks foster vaccine refusal and delay, revealing how social and institutional relations produce refusing or delaying parents and un- or under-vaccinated children. It is likewise critical to understand the development of pro-vaccination orientations by researching those who want to be vaccinated since such attitudes and associated practices underpin successful vaccination programmes. This article explores pro-vaccination sociality, personal histories and self-understandings during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. We draw upon 18 in-depth interviews with older Western Australians, documenting how they articulate 'provax' identities in opposition to those they depict as 'antivax' others. Provax identities were clearly anchored in and solidified through social relations and personal histories, as interviewees spoke of 'likeminded' friends and families who facilitated each other's vaccinations and referenced childhood experiences of epidemics and vaccinations. Access barriers relating to the vaccine programme drove interviewees to reimagine their provax status in light of not yet being vaccinated. Thus, interviewees' moral and ideological understandings of themselves and others were interrelated with supply-side constraints. We examine the development of self-proclaimed 'provaxxers' (in a context of limited access); how they imagine and enact boundaries between themselves and those they deem 'antivax'; and possibilities for public health research.

Understanding Vaccination Among Hesitant Adopters of the COVID-19 Vaccine Using the Increasing Vaccination Model

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was the third leading cause of death in 2021 in the United States and has led to historic declines in life expectancy for Americans. While vaccination is an effective mitigation strategy for COVID-19, vaccine hesitancy remains a major barrier to individual and population-level protection. An emerging literature on hesitant adopters of COVID-19 vaccines highlights co-occurrence of hesitancy and vaccine uptake as an understudied phenomenon, with the potential to provide insight into factors that lead hesitant individuals to become vaccinated despite their hesitancy. We use qualitative interviews among hesitant adopters in Arkansas to examine vaccine hesitancy among this understudied group. Drawing on the Increasing Vaccination Model, we find that the most frequently reported motivations of hesitant adopters were within the domain of social processes, pointing to a critical focal point for targeted health communications intervening in this domain (e.g. social norms, social networks, and altruistic behavior). We find that recommendations from health care workers (HCWs) other than physicians/providers may serve as an effective influence to vaccinate. We also demonstrate negative effects of low provider and HCW confidence and weak recommendations on motivations to vaccinate among individuals expressing vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, we find individual information-seeking behaviors among hesitant adopters bolstered confidence in the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on these findings, clear, accessible, and authoritative health communication has a role in combatting the COVID-19 misinformation/disinformation infodemic.

Marcotte A, M. Kaufman E, Moscovici Z, R. Adams O, Lovins S, R. Garcia J, N. Gesselman A. American Singles' Attitudes Toward Future Romantic/Sexual Partners' COVID-19 Vaccination Status: Evidence for both Vigilance and Indifference in a National Sample

Around 142 million American adults are currently single; at least half of these singles want to pursue a romantic partner. Romantic dating can involve exposure to numerous people. Thus, dating can significantly impact pathogen exposure risk. In a demographically-representative cross-sectional survey conducted in 2021 (N = 5,000), we examined U.S. American singles' COVID-19 vaccination status, assessed their preferences around a potential partner's COVID-19 vaccination status, and identified demographic subgroups of singles particularly opposed to or indifferent to a partner being vaccinated against COVID-19. Our results showed 65% of participants were fully vaccinated, 10% were partially vaccinated, and 26% were unvaccinated against COVID-19. With regards to partner preferences, half wanted a vaccinated partner; 18.9% wanted a vaccinated partner but would make exceptions; 6.1% wanted an unvaccinated partner; and 25% reported that they did not care about their dating partner's vaccination status. Partner preferences were largely aligned with participants' own vaccination status, such that vaccinated participants preferred vaccinated partners. However, those preferring unvaccinated partners-or those willing to make exceptions for a partner-were most likely to identify as men, younger in age, a political affiliation outside of the two-party political system, a gender or sexual minority, or as a racial minority (i.e., Black/African-American or South Asian). Additionally, participants who were employed (vs. unemployed) were more likely to make exceptions for or prefer an unvaccinated partner. These results suggest that singles prefer homophily in COVID-19 vaccine status, and that minoritized subgroups of singles are more likely to maintain a social network including unvaccinated close others.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12119-023-10097-9.

Explaining the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes

BACKGROUND

Women have been significantly more likely than men to express hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination and, to a lesser extent, to refuse vaccination altogether. This gender gap is puzzling because women have been more likely to perceive higher risks from COVID-19, to approve more restrictive measures to fight the pandemic and to be more compliant with such measures.

METHODS

This article studies the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes using two nationally representative surveys of public opinion fielded in February 2021 and May 2021 in 27 European countries. The data are analyzed using generalized additive models and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The data analyses show that hypotheses about (i) pregnancy, fertility and breastfeeding concerns, (ii) higher trust in Internet and social networks as sources of medical information, (iii) lower trust in health authorities and (iv) lower perceived risks of getting infected with COVID-19 cannot account for the gender gap in vaccine hesitancy. One explanation that receives support from the data is that women are more likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and ineffective and this leads them to perceive the net benefits of vaccination as lower than the associated risks.

CONCLUSIONS

The gender gap in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy results to a large extent from women perceiving higher risks than benefits of the vaccines. While accounting for this and other factors decreases the gap in vaccine hesitancy, it does not eliminate it completely, which suggests further research is needed.

The role of civic capital on vaccination

Can civic-minded individuals fight against a pandemic? In this paper, we show that civic capital plays an important role when assessing the level of compliance with COVID-19 vaccination recommendations. Analyzing data on a large sample of municipalities from the Italian region of Lombardy, we show that the share of vaccinated individuals is significantly higher in municipalities with higher pre-determined levels of civic capital. These findings are robust to the possibility of spatial spillovers across neighboring municipalities. Our findings contribute to the existing evidence highlighting the importance of individual contributions and civic capital as important behavioral determinants affecting the containment of infectious diseases.

Local infectious disease experience influences vaccine refusal rates: a natural experiment

Vaccination has been critical to the decline in infectious disease prevalence in recent centuries. Nonetheless, vaccine refusal has increased in recent years, with complacency associated with reductions in disease prevalence highlighted as an important contributor. We exploit a natural experiment in Glasgow at the beginning of the twentieth century to investigate whether prior local experience of an infectious disease matters for vaccination decisions. Our study is based on smallpox surveillance data and administrative records of parental refusal to vaccinate their infants. We analyse variation between administrative units of Glasgow in cases and deaths from smallpox during two epidemics over the period 1900-1904, and vaccine refusal following its legalization in Scotland in 1907 after a long period of compulsory vaccination. We find that lower local disease incidence and mortality during the epidemics were associated with higher rates of subsequent vaccine refusal. This finding indicates that complacency influenced vaccination decisions in periods of higher infectious disease risk, responding to local prior experience of the relevant disease, and has not emerged solely in the context of the generally low levels of infectious disease risk of recent decades. These results suggest that vaccine delivery strategies may benefit from information on local variation in incidence.

COVID vaccine stigma: detecting stigma across social media platforms with computational model based on deep learning

The study presents the first computational model of COVID vaccine stigma that can identify stigmatised sentiment with a high level of accuracy and generalises well across a number of social media platforms. The aim of the study is to understand the lexical features that are prevalent in COVID vaccine discourse and disputes between anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups. This should provide better insight for healthcare authorities, enabling them to better navigate those discussions. The study collected posts and their comments related to COVID vaccine sentiment in English, from Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube, for the period from April 2020 to March 2021. The labels used in the model, "stigma", "not stigma", and "undefined", were collected from a smaller Facebook (Meta) dataset and successfully propagated into a larger dataset from Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube. The success of the propagation task and consequent classification is a result of state-of-the-art annotation scheme and annotated dataset. Deep learning and pre-trained word vector embedding significantly outperformed traditional algorithms, according to two-tailed P(T≤t) test and achieved F1 score of 0.794 on the classification task with three classes. Stigmatised text in COVID anti-vaccine discourse is characterised by high levels of subjectivity, negative sentiment, anxiety, anger, risk, and healthcare references. After the first half of 2020, anti-vaccination stigma sentiment appears often in comments to posts attempting to disprove COVID vaccine conspiracy theories. This is inconsonant with previous research findings, where anti-vaccine people stayed primarily within their own in-group discussions. This shift in the behaviour of the anti-vaccine movement from affirming climates to ones with opposing opinions will be discussed and elaborated further in the study.

Social asset or social liability? How partisanship moderates the relationship between social capital and Covid-19 vaccination rates across United States counties

This study investigates the interactive effect of social capital and partisanship on COVID-19 vaccination rates. Using county-level data from the United States (U.S.), we empirically find that social capital is a double-edged sword. Its effect on the vaccination rate depends on the dominant partisanship of the jurisdiction. In more liberal counties, stronger social capital is a social asset that encourages people to seek vaccination and results in a higher vaccination rate. In contrast, in more conservative counties where the Trump-voting rate reaches 73% and beyond, stronger social capital becomes a social liability for public health by reinforcing residents' hesitancy toward or rejection of vaccinations, leading to a lower vaccination rate. This study implies the need for reducing the partisanship salience and investing in bridging and linking social capital in polarized communities.

Agency and liminality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Why information literacy cannot fix vaccine hesitancy

This article employs a sociological and dialogical information perspective to identify what shape information literacy practice takes for people who are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. An information perspective places information and people’s relations with information at the centre of the inquiry. The study carried out 14 semi-structured interviews with UK adults who had not yet received or taken up their invitation to have the COVID-19 vaccine. Outcomes of this study suggest that information literacy practices related to vaccine hesitancy emerged through the liminal space and in relation to agentic performance, which was catalysed through engagement with experiential, corporeal and social information. This study has implications for the teaching of information literacy, in particular, the idea that being informed is an affirmative action that will automatically empower learners to make appropriate choices.

Parental gender differences in attitudes and willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19

AIMS

COVID-19 affects family life world-wide. Determinants of hesitancy around vaccinating children against COVID-19 are critical in guiding public health campaigns. Gender differences among parents may determine willingness to vaccinate children against COVID-19.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of the COVID-19 Parental Attitude Study (COVIPAS) surveying care givers of children presenting for emergency care in 17 sites in 6 countries during peak pandemic (March-June, 2020). We assessed risk perceptions, vaccination history and plans to vaccinate children against COVID-19 once available. We compared responses given by father or mother and used multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 2025 (75.4%) surveys were completed by mothers and 662 (24.6%) by fathers, 60 did not respond to question about future vaccination. Of 2627, 1721 (65.5%) were willing to vaccinate their children. In the multivariable analysis, both fathers and mothers were more willing to vaccinate their child if the parent was older and believed that social distancing is worthwhile, and if their child was up-to-date on childhood vaccines (odds ratio (OR) of 1.02, 3.90, 1.65 for mothers and 1.04, 4.76, 2.87 for fathers, respectively). Mothers (but not fathers) were more willing if they had more than a high school education (OR 1.38), and fathers (but not mothers) were more willing to vaccinate their male children (OR 1.62), compared to female children.

CONCLUSION

Unique differences between mothers and fathers underscore the need to view vaccine hesitancy as an acceptable parental response. Public health should plan targeted educational information for parents about a COVID-19 vaccine for children.

Communities and testing for COVID-19

The response to the COVID-19 epidemic requires people to undertake actions such as mask-wearing or vaccination that also confer benefits to the whole community, and therefore, are akin to public good contributions. This is the case also for participation to the mass testing that took place between November 18th and 25th, 2020 in the South Tyrol region of Italy, where 361,781 out of 500,607 (72.3%) eligible residents volunteered to take a COVID-19 rapid antigen test. We examine the community characteristics that are associated with higher testing rates. Our findings point to a number of key community determinants of people's willingness to volunteer. Convenience and social capital were important factors. Beyond that, socioeconomic status and religiosity were also both positively related to greater testing, while childhood vaccinations refusal rates show a negative relationship.

Right-wing ideological constraint and vaccine refusal: The case of the COVID-19 vaccine in Norway

Research has shown a correlation between votes for populist parties and the belief that vaccines are not important or effective. More recent investigations in the United States and France have similarly shown that attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine have been politicized. In this article, we show a similar pattern analyzing survey data from Norway, a country relatively mildly hit by the pandemic and characterized by high trust and a consensual political culture. We find that refusal to vaccinate is associated with right-wing ideological constraint, even when considering a wide array of control variables (e.g., lack of confidence, complacency), and sociodemographic characteristics. The results imply that vaccine refusal latch onto established political cleavages, particularly among the most ideologically consistent. Thus, polarization in the form of increasing ideological constraint may represent a mounting challenge for vaccine uptake, suggesting that vaccine communication should go beyond "explaining the science" and factor in ideology.

'Get your own house in order': Qualitative dialogue groups with nonvaccinating parents on how measles outbreaks in their community should be managed

Objective

Communities with high levels of vaccine rejection present unique challenges to vaccine‐preventable disease outbreak management. We sought perspectives of nonvaccinating parents to inform public health responses in such communities.

Methods

Nineteen purposively sampled nonvaccinating Australian parents participated in one of seven online dialogue groups. We asked what they thought parents, school principals and public health professionals should do in a hypothetical school measles outbreak and used a framework approach to data analysis.

Results

Parents' views were grounded in strong beliefs in parental responsibility and the belief that vaccines are not effective, thus unvaccinated children do not therefore pose a threat. They then reasoned that the forced exclusion of unvaccinated children from school in a measles outbreak was disproportionate to the risk they pose, and their child's right to education should not be overridden. Nonvaccinating parents judged that all parents should keep sick children at home regardless of disease or vaccination status; that school principals should communicate directly with parents and avoid using social media; that public health professionals should provide information to parents so they can decide for themselves about excluding their children from school; that public health responses should avoid accidental identification of unvaccinated children and that mainstream media should be avoided as a communication tool.

Conclusion

Nonvaccinating parents do not always agree with current Australian approaches to measles outbreak management. Their perspectives can inform approaches to outbreak responses in communities with high levels of vaccine rejection.

Patient or Public Contribution

We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate on study design in its early phases. Individual conversations were used deliberately as we felt the group advisory situation may have felt less safe for nonvaccinating parents, given the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic.

Parents' vaccination information seeking, satisfaction with and trust in medical providers in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to better understand parental trust in and satisfaction with information sources and medical providers regarding decision making about childhood vaccines.

SETTING

The study was part of a Swiss national research programme investigating vaccine hesitancy and underimmunisation.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted qualitative interviews with 37 providers and 30 parents, observed 34 vaccination consultations, and then conducted quantitative surveys with 130 providers (both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) oriented and biomedically oriented) and 1390 parents.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' vaccination information sources used in their decision-making process, parents' trust in and satisfaction with these sources and providers.

RESULTS

Based on the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines scale, we considered 501 parents as vaccine-hesitant (VH) and 889 parents as non-VH. Whereas both groups mentioned providers as the most trusted source of information, VH-parents were less likely to mention paediatricians (N=358 (71%) vs N=755 (85%)) and public health authorities (N=101 (20%) vs N=333 (37%)) than non-VH-parents. VH-parents were more likely to have consulted another provider (N=196 (39%) vs N=173 (19%)) than non-VH-parents, to express less satisfaction with both their primary (N=342 (82%) vs N=586 (91%)) and other providers (N=82 (42%) vs N=142 (82%)) and less trust in their primary (N=368 (88%) vs N=632 (98%)) and other providers (N=108 (55%) vs N=146 (84%)). VH-parents were less likely to be satisfied with their biomedical primary provider than non-VH-parents (100 (69%) vs 467 (91%)). However, when the primary provider was CAM-oriented, there were similar levels of satisfaction among both groups (237 (89%) VH-parents vs 118 (89%) non-VH-parents). All differences were significant (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While the provider remains the main information source, VH parents turn to additional sources and providers, which is likely related to VH parents being rather dissatisfied with and distrusting in obtained information and their provider.

ETHICS

The local ethics committee (Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz, EKNZ; project ID number 2017-00725) approved the study.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Role of Socioeconomic Factors and Spatial Effects

This paper investigates the spatial dimension of socioeconomic and demographic factors behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. With a focus on a county with considerable sociodemographic diversity in the state of Texas, USA, we apply regression models to census-tract-level data of the unvaccinated population. In addition to disparities in accessing the vaccination service, particularly for residents in rural areas, empirical results confirm under-vaccination among lower socioeconomic neighborhoods and communities with signs of distrust in government. The spatial model regressions further underscore the impact that vaccine hesitancy among residents in one community spread to its nearby communities. This observed spatial spillover effect is attributable to the geographic interactions of similar socioeconomic groups.

Becoming skeptical towards vaccines: How health views shape the trajectories following health-related events

Recent studies on skepticism towards childhood vaccination urge scholars to analyse vaccination trajectories. Focusing on a social group that recent studies point out as being especially relevant because of its relatively high level of skepticism toward childhood vaccination, we use in-depth interviews resembling open conversations to explore how more-educated parents' views on vaccination came about. Providing an in-depth understanding of these vaccine-skepticism trajectories, we additionally analyse 1) how health-related events play a role in parents' trajectories, and 2) how these trajectories are shaped by parents' pre-existing health views. Interviews with 31 more-educated Dutch parents reveal that different types of events incite respondents to start questioning vaccinations. Next to more commonly studied events that directly involve parents' or their children's health (e.g., (perceived) adverse effects of treatments), events that are also related to the topic of health or vaccination but do not involve parents' or their children's health (e.g., when health issues come up in a conversation) may incite parents to start questioning vaccination. Moreover, how respondents experience (different types of) health-related events, and how they go through distinct stages after this, proves shaped by their pre-existing health views: parents with nature-oriented health views came to doubt the fundamental principles of vaccination, turning instead to 'alternative' resources and practices; parents with science-oriented views queried the potential risks of vaccination and sought out what they viewed as the most scientifically sound information. We discuss the implications of our findings for scholarly debates and provide suggestions for further research.

Facilitators to vaccination among hesitant adopters

To end the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to increase vaccine coverage in the United States (U.S.). In this study, we examine the facilitators that helped hesitant adopters - those who are both vaccinated and report some degree of hesitancy - overcome barriers to vaccination. Drawing on a sample of 867 hesitant adopters in Arkansas, we find social networks, individual actions, health care organizations and professionals, employers, religious communities and leaders, and the media all play a role in helping the vaccine hesitant overcome barriers to vaccination. Our findings demonstrate vaccine hesitancy and uptake occur simultaneously, and overcoming hesitancy in the U.S. population requires multifaceted strategies from multiple entities. We provide recommendations for overcoming barriers, including hesitancy, based on our findings.

Stigmatized for standing up for my child: A qualitative study of non-vaccinating parents in Australia

BACKGROUND

Vaccine refusal is highly polarizing in Australia, producing a challenging social landscape for non-vaccinating parents. We sought to understand the lived experience of non-vaccinating parents in contemporary Australia.

METHODS

We recruited a national sample of non-vaccinating parents of children <18 yrs, advertising on national radio, in playgrounds in low vaccination areas, and using snowballing. Grounded Theory methodology guided data collection (via semi-structured interviews). Inductive analysis identified stigmatization as a central concept; stigma theory was adopted as an analytical lens.

RESULTS

Twenty-one parents from regional and urban locations in five states were interviewed. Parent's described experiences point to systematic stigmatization which can be characterized using Link & Phelan's five-step process. Parents experienced (1) labelling and (2) stereotyping, with many not identifying with the "anti-vaxxers" portrayed in the media and describing frustration at being labelled as such, believing they were defending their child from harm. Participants described (3) social "othering", leading to relationship loss and social isolation, and (4) status loss and discrimination, feeling "brushed off" as incompetent parents and discriminated against by medical professionals and other parents. Finally, (5) legislative changes exerted power over their circumstances, rendering them unable to provide their children with the same financial and educational opportunities as vaccinated children, often increasing their steadfastness in refusing vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Non-vaccinating Australian parents feel stigmatized for defending their child from perceived risk of harm, reporting a range of social and psychological effects, as well as financial effects from policies which disadvantaged their children through differential financial treatment, and diminished early childhood educational opportunities. While it might be argued that social stigma and exclusionary policies directed a small minority for the greater good are justified, other more nuanced approaches based on better understandings of vaccine rejection could achieve comparable public health outcomes without the detrimental effect on unvaccinated families.

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.

Community Boosts Immunity? Exploring the Relationship Between Social Capital and COVID-19 Social Distancing

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic required a dramatic change in social practices, including distancing from social settings, to limit its spread. While social capital has considerable potential in facilitating the adoption of these norms, it also comes with considerable limitations that potentially undermine its effectiveness. We draw upon recently released mobility data from Google, network data from Facebook, and demographic data from the 2018 American Community Survey to determine how both organizational and networked measures of social capital relate to different forms of distancing. In addition, we employ geographically weighted regression to identify how these relationships vary across the nation. Findings indicate that while both forms of social capital can positively relate to distancing, the impacts are spatially inconsistent and, in some locations, social capital can discourage distancing. In sum, more policy efforts are needed to address not only low-social capital, but also unhelpful social capital.

Health decisions amidst controversy: Prenatal alcohol consumption and the unequal experience of influence and control in networks

Individuals avoid stigma by looking to members of their networks for guidance on how to behave. Health controversies complicate this process by exposing people to inconsistent norms, influence, and control within their networks. To understand this process, we meld perspectives on networks and social psychology. Using the case of light/moderate drinking during pregnancy, we examine how people make health decisions in the face of controversy. Through in-depth interviews with first-time pregnant individuals and their health care providers, we reveal that individuals' decisions about controversial health behaviors depend on 1) the consistency of the influence and control they encounter, 2) their status relative to enforcers, and 3) the strength of their ties to enforcers. These processes give people from higher social positions more power to resist influence and control. These findings illuminate how medical recommendations and public health interventions should account for the unequal experience of influence and control within networks.

Using Machine Learning to Compare Provaccine and Antivaccine Discourse Among the Public on Social Media: Algorithm Development Study

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous counteracting efforts, antivaccine content linked to delays and refusals to vaccinate has grown persistently on social media, while only a few provaccine campaigns have succeeded in engaging with or persuading the public to accept immunization. Many prior studies have associated the diversity of topics discussed by antivaccine advocates with the public's higher engagement with such content. Nonetheless, a comprehensive comparison of discursive topics in pro- and antivaccine content in the engagement-persuasion spectrum remains unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare discursive topics chosen by pro- and antivaccine advocates in their attempts to influence the public to accept or reject immunization in the engagement-persuasion spectrum. Our overall objective was pursued through three specific aims as follows: (1) we classified vaccine-related tweets into provaccine, antivaccine, and neutral categories; (2) we extracted and visualized discursive topics from these tweets to explain disparities in engagement between pro- and antivaccine content; and (3) we identified how those topics frame vaccines using Entman's four framing dimensions.

METHODS

We adopted a multimethod approach to analyze discursive topics in the vaccine debate on public social media sites. Our approach combined (1) large-scale balanced data collection from a public social media site (ie, 39,962 tweets from Twitter); (2) the development of a supervised classification algorithm for categorizing tweets into provaccine, antivaccine, and neutral groups; (3) the application of an unsupervised clustering algorithm for identifying prominent topics discussed on both sides; and (4) a multistep qualitative content analysis for identifying the prominent discursive topics and how vaccines are framed in these topics. In so doing, we alleviated methodological challenges that have hindered previous analyses of pro- and antivaccine discursive topics.

RESULTS

Our results indicated that antivaccine topics have greater intertopic distinctiveness (ie, the degree to which discursive topics are distinct from one another) than their provaccine counterparts (t₁₂₂=2.30, P=.02). In addition, while antivaccine advocates use all four message frames known to make narratives persuasive and influential, provaccine advocates have neglected having a clear problem statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, we attribute higher engagement among antivaccine advocates to the distinctiveness of the topics they discuss, and we ascribe the influence of the vaccine debate on uptake rates to the comprehensiveness of the message frames. These results show the urgency of developing clear problem statements for provaccine content to counteract the negative impact of antivaccine content on uptake rates.

Distancing the socially distanced: Racial/ethnic composition's association with physical distancing in response to COVID-19 in the U.S

Social distancing prescribed by policy makers in response to COVID-19 raises important questions as to how effectively people of color can distance. Due to inequalities from residential segregation, Hispanic and Black populations have challenges in meeting health expectations. However, segregated neighborhoods also support the formation of social bonds that relate to healthy behaviors. We evaluate the question of non-White distancing using social mobility data from Google on three sites: workplaces, grocery stores, and recreational locations. Employing hierarchical linear modeling and geographically weighted regression, we find the relation of race/ethnicity to COVID-19 distancing is varied across the United States. The HLM models show that compared to Black populations, Hispanic populations overall more effectively distance from recreation sites and grocery stores: each point increase in percent Hispanic was related to residents being 0.092 percent less likely (p< 0.05) to visit recreational sites and 0.127 percent less likely (p< 0.01) to visit grocery stores since the onset of COVID-19. However, the GWR models show there are places where the percent Black is locally related to recreation distancing while percent Hispanic is not. Further, these models show the association of percent Black to recreation and grocery distancing can be locally as strong as 1.057 percent (p< 0.05) and 0.989 percent (p< 0.05), respectively. Next, the HLM models identified that Black/White residential isolation was related to less distancing, with each point of isolation residents were 11.476 percent more likely (p< 0.01) to go to recreational sites and 7.493 percent more likely (p< 0.05) to visit grocery stores compared to before COVID-19. These models did not find a measurable advantage/disadvantage for Black populations in these places compared to White populations. COVID-19 policy should not assume disadvantage in achieving social distancing accrue equally to different racial/ethnic minorities.

The mediating role of vaccine hesitancy between maternal engagement with anti- and pro-vaccine social media posts and adolescent HPV-vaccine uptake rates in the US: The perspective of loss aversion in emotion-laden decision circumstances

While Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a prominent cause of cervical cancer and mortality among underserved women, HPV vaccine completion rates remain stagnant (54%) among US adolescents. Our objective is to identify how adolescents' mothers' engagement with anti-vaccine versus pro-vaccine social media content is associated with their children's HPV vaccination rates via increased vaccine hesitancy. We employ the notion of loss aversion escalated in an emotion-laden circumstance in consumer behavior literature given that HPV vaccination decisions directly affect children's well-being. Based on this escalated loss aversion tendency for an emotion-laden decision, we explain why anti-vaccine content disproportionately increases mothers' overarching vaccine hesitancy, while pro-vaccine content does not decrease vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a population-based survey among 426 mothers of US adolescents aged 13-18. Our sample closely mimics the socioeconomic and demographic factors of the population group of mothers of adolescents in the US census. Our results show that anti-vaccine social media posts are associated with increases in mothers' overarching vaccine hesitancy and with decreases in their children's HPV vaccination rates, while pro-vaccine content has no significant association with either.

Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use

Despite vast improvements in global vaccination coverage during the last decade, there is a growing trend in vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal globally. This has implications for the acceptance and coverage of a potential vaccine against COVID-19. In the United States, the number of children exempt from vaccination for “philosophical belief-based” non-medical reasons increased in 12 of the 18 states that allowed this policy from 2009 to 2017 (1). Meanwhile, the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially in young children, have led to increasing rates of drug resistance that threaten our ability to treat infectious diseases. Vaccine hesitancy and antibiotic overuse exist side-by-side in the same population of young children, and it is unclear why one modality (antibiotics) is universally seen as safe and effective, while the other (vaccines) is seen as potentially hazardous by some. In this review, we consider the drivers shaping the use of vaccines and antibiotics in the context of three factors: individual incentives, risk perceptions, and social norms and group dynamics. We illustrate how these factors contribute to the societal and individual costs of vaccine underuse and antimicrobial overuse. Ultimately, we seek to understand these factors that are at the nexus of infectious disease epidemiology and social science to inform policy-making.

Vaccination discourses among chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths: A qualitative content analysis of academic literature and Canadian organizational webpages

Vaccine hesitancy–the reluctance to receive recommended vaccination because of concerns and doubts about vaccines–is recognized as a significant threat to the success of vaccination programs and has been associated with recent major outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Moreover, the association between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal has been frequently reported in the literature. To date, significant gaps persist in our understanding of contemporary Canadian CAM providers’ beliefs regarding vaccination and how socio-professional influences may shape their vaccine-related attitudes and behaviours. To address the latter gap, the current study aims to explore the content of professional guidelines, recommendations and other discourses among CAM providers as they concern vaccination by analyzing both academic, peer-reviewed literature and Canadian organizational webpages prepared by and/or for practicing chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths. In the academic literature, we identified a number of complex and diverging views on vaccination that spanned topics of effectiveness; safety; theoretical, empirical, and ethical soundness; political justifiability; and compatibility with CAM philosophy and professional boundaries. However, in its current state the CAM literature cannot be described in broad strokes as being either pro- or anti-vaccination without considering finer areas of disagreement. Compared to the academic literature, which focuses more on the conceptual and evidentiary basis of vaccination, a greater proportion of vaccine-related content on Canadian CAM organizations’ webpages seems to be dedicated to offering specific directives and prescriptions to providers. Guidelines and standards of practice address a number of issues, including vaccine administration, counsel, education and marketing. As CAM organizations further evolve in Canada and elsewhere as part of a broader “professionalization” initiative, greater attention will need to be directed at their role in shaping providers’ beliefs and practices that both support and undermine vaccine promotion efforts.

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.