Media coverage of anthrax vaccination refusal by Australian Defence Force personnel

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

Rethinking the antivaccine movement concept: A case study of public criticism of the swine flu vaccine's safety in France

In this article I discuss the definition of "the Antivaccine Movement" using the case of the French controversy over the safety of the 2009 pandemic flu vaccine. I show that the group of main actors who criticized the vaccine's safety is heterogeneous. This heterogeneity can be found in the type of arguments mobilized to question the vaccine's safety and in these actors' likelihood of being involved in any vaccine-related controversies. I show that only a minority of these actors rejected vaccination in general and mobilized against all vaccination campaigns. Most of these actors only occasionally mobilized against a given vaccine or vaccination campaign and they did so to promote a political or cultural agenda that went beyond the vaccine itself. Using these results, I argue that in order to better understand how vaccine-related controversies emerge and why some activists devote time and resources to spread vaccine-critical arguments, social scientists should use three distinct concepts to refer to vaccine criticism: The Antivaccine Movement, the Marginally Antivaccine Movements and the Occasionally Vaccine Critical Movements. To do so would enable social scientists and public health experts to better understand the different ways in which vaccination can become politicized and the evolution of this politicization.

Vaccine criticism on the Internet: Propositions for future research

Research on vaccine criticism on the Internet is now at a crossroads, with an already important body of knowledge published on the subject but also a continuous and even growing interest in the scientific community. In this commentary, we reflect on the published literature from the standpoint of sociologists interested in social movements and their activists and the influence they can have on vaccination behaviors. We suggest several avenues of research for future studies of vaccine criticism on the Internet: 1) paying more attention to the actors who publish vaccine critical contents and to their use of the Internet in relationship to the other means through which they try to mobilize the population - the production of vaccine critical information on the Internet, and not only its nature and its reception, should therefore become one of the main objects of this strand of research -; 2) paying closer attention to what distinguishes the different strands of vaccine criticism regarding both what they dislike about vaccines (or about a given vaccine) and how this fight is integrated in a more general political or cultural struggle; 3) investigating further how the new forms of social interactions allowed by the Internet affect the transmission of vaccine related information and the capacity of vaccine critical actors to enroll members of the public in their political or cultural struggle.

Patterns and determinants of influenza and pneumococcal immunisation among adults with chronic disease living in Queensland, Australia

Using findings from a random, computer assisted telephone survey of households, this paper examines influenza and pneumococcal immunisation coverage and predictors of immunisation in 2203 adults with asthma, diabetes or a cardiovascular condition living in Queensland, Australia. 47% and 31% of high-risk persons were immunised against influenza and pneumococcus respectively. Immunisation coverage varied across chronic conditions and increased with age, being significantly higher for those aged 65 years and older and consequently eligible for free vaccination. Poor self reported health status was an independent predictor of pneumococcal vaccination status for people with asthma, diabetes or a cardiovascular condition; however it was only an independent predictor of influenza immunisation status for people with diabetes. Extending free vaccination to all people at risk may increase immunisation rates for younger people with a chronic condition.

Health scares: Professional priorities

Currently, many health scholars are concerned about health scares. But what do they mean by the term 'health scare' - are health scares an identifiable phenomenon and how do we currently understand their causation and consequences? By collecting and analysing published articles about events considered to be health scares, this article maps the current views of scholars on their characteristics and causes. Results show that health scares are generally understood as events characterized by fears of catastrophic consequences but little actual mortality. However, the social and economic impacts of these events have often been severe. This survey shows that health scares can be usefully sorted into six categories, each with identifiable internal dynamics, suggesting different communications strategies to achieve resolution in each category. Using the social amplification of risk framework, the conditions under which risk signals were amplified were traced in general terms among major stakeholders. Simple causes for health scare events could not be identified, though some triggers did emerge. Importantly, public ignorance of real risk, media scaremongering and political inaction could be dismissed as primary explanations, though they were sometimes factors in scare events. Implications for risk communication and for future research on risk and public health are discussed.

Adverse events after anthrax vaccination reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2007

During the period March 1, 1998 to January 14, 2007, approximately 6 million doses of Anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) vaccine were administered. As of January 16, 2007, 4753 reports of adverse events following receipt of AVA vaccination had been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Taken together, reports to VAERS did not definitively link any serious unexpected risk to this vaccine, and review of death and serious reports did not show a distinctive pattern indicative of a causal relationship to AVA vaccination. Continued monitoring of VAERS and analysis of potential associations between AVA vaccination and rare, serious events is warranted.

What maintains parental support for vaccination when challenged by anti-vaccination messages? A qualitative study

This study sought to explore how parents respond to competing media messages about vaccine safety. Six focus groups with mothers of infants were shown television vignettes of typical pro- and anti-vaccination claims. Thematic analysis of transcripts was undertaken. Mothers expressed surprise and concern about alleged vaccine risks but quickly reinstated their support for vaccination by deference to authority figures; type-casting immunisation opponents; and notions of anticipatory regret, good parenting and social responsibility. We conclude that personal experiences, value systems and level of trust in health professionals are fundamental to parental decision making about vaccination. Vaccination advocacy should increase the focus on matters of process such as maintaining trust and public confidence, particularly in health professionals. Stories about people affected by vaccine-preventable diseases need to re-enter the public discourse.