Perceptions of personal belief vaccine exemption policy: a survey of Arizona vaccine providers

The Impact of Australian Childhood Vaccination Mandates on Immunization Specialists and Their Interactions With Families

BACKGROUND

Recent global outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, both before and since the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have led to the introduction or strengthening of vaccine mandate policies to target vaccine refusal. Globally, there is wide variation in how governments and jurisdictions implement and enforce mandatory vaccination as well as the financial and educational consequences to those who fail to comply. We explored the impact of mandate vaccination policies on Australian Immunization Specialists who work in Specialist Immunization Clinics (SIC) for approving vaccine exemptions outside of the mandated criteria. In particular, their interactions with patients and families.

METHODS

A national, prospective, mixed methods, survey-based study conducted with members of the Australian Adverse Event Following Immunisation Clinical Assessment Network between February 2020 and June 2020.

RESULTS

Sixteen Immunization physicians and nurse practitioner specialists working in a SIC completed the survey. All sixteen respondents had been requested by parents to provide a Medical Exemptions at least once. 88% of respondents felt pressure to provide an exemption that was not medically justified according to legislation. Seventy-five percent of SIC consultants felt that the "No Jab" policies created a moderate or extreme amount of stress to both themselves and parents. All respondents reported experiencing hostility from parents with three respondents having received threats of violence.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandatory vaccination policies are associated with increased vaccination coverage but can result in widened financial and social inequity, and may harm families' relationships with health care providers. Countries considering the implementation of vaccination mandates should use the least restrictive health policies to ensure a balance between the public health and individual benefit whilst minimizing burdens on health care professionals, children and their parents.

Pediatric Care Provider Density and Personal Belief Exemptions From Vaccine Requirements in California Kindergartens

OBJECTIVES

To understand contextual associations between medical care providers-pediatricians, family medical practitioners, and alternative medicine practitioners-and personal belief exemptions (PBEs) from mandated school entry vaccinations.

METHODS

Data on kindergarten PBEs from the California Department of Public Health were analyzed for 2010, 2011, and 2012, with each school sorted into Primary Care Service Areas (PCSAs). Provider data from federal sources and state records of alternative medicine providers, alongside controls for school factors, were used to estimate panel models.

RESULTS

Each 10% increase in the relative proportion of pediatricians in a given PCSA was associated with a statistically significant 11% decrease in PBE prevalence. The same increase in the proportion of family medical practitioners was associated with a 3.5% relative increase. Access to alternative medicine practitioners was also associated with a significantly higher PBE prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical provider contexts are associated with PBEs, reflecting a combination of contextual effects and self-selection of families into schools and PCSAs that share their preferences. The geographic distribution of child primary care services may be a key factor in a school's health risk associated with lack of immunization or underimmunization.

Physician support of HPV vaccination school-entry requirements

School-entry requirements in the US have led to high coverage for several vaccines, but few states and jurisdictions have adopted these policies for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Because physicians play a key role in advocating for vaccination policies, we assessed physician support of requiring HPV vaccine for school entry and correlates of this support. Participants were a national sample of 775 physicians who provide primary care, including vaccines, to adolescents. Physicians completed an online survey in 2014 that assessed their support for school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination of 11 and 12 y olds. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess correlates of support for these requirements. The majority of physicians (74%) supported some form of school-entry requirements, with or without opt-out provisions. When opt-out provisions were not specified, 47% agreed that laws requiring HPV vaccination for school attendance were a "good idea." Physicians more often agreed with requirements, without opt-out provisions, if they: had more years in practice (OR=1.49; 95% CI: 1.09-2.04), gave higher quality HPV vaccine recommendations (OR=2.06; 95% CI: 1.45-2.93), believed that having requirements for Tdap, but not HPV, vaccination undermined its importance (OR=3.33; 95% CI: 2.26-4.9), and believed HPV vaccination was as or more important than other adolescent vaccinations (OR=2.30; 95% CI: 1.65-3.18). In conclusion, we found that many physicians supported school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which opt-out provisions might weaken or strengthen physician support of HPV vaccination school-entry requirements.