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

The vaccination divide: Exploring moral reasoning associated with intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated people

OBJECTIVES

There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude.

METHODS

Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022.

RESULTS

Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

CONCLUSIONS

This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate.

Childhood vaccine refusal and what to do about it: a systematic review of the ethical literature

BACKGROUND

Parental refusal of routine childhood vaccination remains an ethically contested area. This systematic review sought to explore and characterise the normative arguments made about parental refusal of routine vaccination, with the aim of providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of current normative literature.

METHODS

Nine databases covering health and ethics research were searched, and 121 publications identified for the period Jan 1998 to Mar 2022. For articles, source journals were categorised according to Australian Standard Field of Research codes, and normative content was analysed using a framework analytical approach.

RESULTS

Most of the articles were published in biomedical journals (34%), bioethics journals (21%), and journals that carry both classifications (20%). Two central questions dominated the literature: (1) Whether vaccine refusal is justifiable (which we labelled 'refusal arguments'); and (2) Whether strategies for dealing with those who reject vaccines are justifiable ('response arguments'). Refusal arguments relied on principlism, religious frameworks, the rights and obligations of parents, the rights of children, the medico-legal best interests of the child standard, and the potential to cause harm to others. Response arguments were broadly divided into arguments about policy, arguments about how individual physicians should practice regarding vaccine rejectors, and both legal precedents and ethical arguments for vaccinating children against a parent's will. Policy arguments considered the normative significance of coercion, non-medical or conscientious objections, and possible reciprocal social efforts to offset vaccine refusal. Individual physician practice arguments covered nudging and coercive practices, patient dismissal, and the ethical and professional obligations of physicians. Most of the legal precedents discussed were from the American setting, with some from the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive picture of the scope and substance of normative arguments about vaccine refusal and responses to vaccine refusal. It can serve as a platform for future research to extend the current normative literature, better understand the role of cultural context in normative judgements about vaccination, and more comprehensively translate the nuance of ethical arguments into practice and policy.

'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.

Psychological mechanisms and interventions directed at vaccination attitudes

Attitudes about vaccination impact not only the individual but also society. Therefore, understanding the underlying psychological processes of those who disagree with vaccination is critical for creating compassion through understanding and change through promoting autonomy. The current review aimed to fill a gap in the literature, outlining the state of the recent research on vaccination attitudes, specifically on the underlying mechanisms driving anti-vaccination movements and individuals' thoughts and behaviors. In addition, we aimed to evaluate current research on the effectiveness of interventions targeting these mechanisms. Overall, results indicated that those declining vaccines had beliefs related to distrust in the scientific community and pharmaceutical companies and moral preferences for purity and liberty. In addition, our review identified the potential for utilizing motivational interviewing techniques as an intervention. This literature review provides a platform for further research and enhances the current understanding of vaccination attitudes.

Trust, Science Education and Vaccines

The issue of trust in science has come to the fore in recent years. I focus on vaccines, first looking at what is known about trust in vaccines and then concentrating on whether what science education teaches about vaccines can be trusted. I present an argument to connect the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy to the issue of trust and then argue for what an education about vaccines in school science might look like that takes seriously the notion of respect for students, including students who hold views about vaccination with which science teachers might disagree. Trust in others (people and institutions) varies greatly, both between countries and within countries, and depends on the characteristics of both trustor and trustee, and there are great differences in the extent to which people trust vaccines. However, it is a mistake to think that people who do not trust vaccines are simply ill-informed. There are a range of reasons for rejecting what is often an unexamined narrative about vaccines, namely that vaccines are always desirable. Many people come from communities that have sound reasons for being suspicious of what they are told by governments, business and the medical establishment. COVID-19 and earlier reactions to vaccination health scares show how important high-quality education about vaccines is. Much of that education can take place out of school, but the foundations are laid in school. Vaccine rejection and hesitancy have major global public health implications. Good quality vaccine education should help students understand about relevant biology and the nature of science; it should also be respectful of all students, including those who come from families that reject vaccines or are hesitant about them.

Understanding Factors to COVID-19 Vaccine Adoption in Gujarat, India

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed threats to human life across the globe, including India. Vaccinating is an effective means of addressing the pandemic threat. The government of India has implemented a massive vaccination drive to save its citizens from the deadly virus. However, the effort has faced multiple challenges, including vaccine hesitancy. This research understands respondents' perspectives on factors contributing to the lower vaccination uptake in Gujarat, India. Forty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted through convenience sampling representing different demographic backgrounds. Factors influencing vaccine adoption included religious leadership, political leadership and the government, and fear of side effects, especially among children and those with co-morbidities, resulting primarily from fake news and misinformation circulated through social media. Compared with nine countries from across the world, the study found similarities to vaccine hesitancy from misinformation and the fear of side effects among children. In contrast, the role of government and the influence of religious and political leaders was considered positive. The study recommends strategies to overcome people's apprehensions about the adoption of vaccination. These include offering incentives, providing positive peer-to-peer communication, recruiting influencers such as religious and community leaders and early adopters such as the elderly population to endorse vaccination, targeting youth through social media, and reaching rural sections by involving NGOs and social service groups.

Mapping precision public health definitions, terminology and applications: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Precision public health is an emerging and evolving field. Academic communities are divided regarding terminology and definitions, and what the scope, parameters and goals of precision public health should include. This protocol summarises the procedure for a scoping review which aims to identify and describe definitions, terminology, uses of the term and concepts in current literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review will be undertaken to gather existing literature on precision public health. We will search CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, and include all documents published in English that mention precision public health. A critical discourse analysis of the resulting papers will generate an account of precision public health terminology, definitions and uses of the term and the use and meaning of language. The analysis will occur in stages: first, descriptive information will be extracted and descriptive statistics will be calculated in order to characterise the literature. Second, occurrences of the phrase 'precision public health' and alternative terms in documents will be enumerated and mapped, and definitions collected. The third stage of discourse analysis will involve analysis and interpretation of the meaning of precision public health, including the composition, organisation and function of discourses. Finally, discourse analysis of alternative phrases to precision public health will be undertaken. This will include analysis and interpretation of what alternative phrases to precision public health are used to mean, how the phrases relate to each other and how they are compared or contrasted to precision public health. Results will be grouped under headings according to how they answer the research questions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval will be required for the scoping review. Results of the scoping review will be used as part of a doctoral thesis, and may be published in journals, conference proceedings or elsewhere.

The Social Bifurcation of Reality: Symmetrical Construction of Knowledge in Science-Trusting and Science-Distrusting Discourses

This article proposes a conceptual framework to study the social bifurcation of reality in polarized science-trusting and science-distrusting lay worldviews, by analyzing and integrating five concepts: science work, number work, emotion work, time work, and boundary work. Despite the epistemological asymmetry between accounts relying on mainstream science and science-distrusting or denialist ones, there are symmetrical social processes contributing to the construction of lay discourses. Through conceptual analysis, we synthesize an alternative to the deficit model of contrarian discourses, replacing the model of social actors as "defective scientists" with a focus on their culturally competent agency. The proposed framework is useful for observing the parallel construction of polarized realities in interaction and their ongoing articulation through hinge objects, such as vaccines, seatbelts, guns, or sanitary masks in the Covid-19 context. We illustrate the framework through a comparative approach, presenting arguments and memes from contemporary online media in two controversies: namely, vaccine-trusting versus vaccine-distrusting views and Covid-convinced versus Covid-suspicious discourses.

Understanding how the Australian vaccine-refusal movement perceives itself

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

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.

Labels matter: Use and non-use of 'anti-vax' framing in Australian media discourse 2008-2018

Childhood vaccine refusal is a globally contentious topic, with some jurisdictions addressing it with punitive policies. Media discourse influences how solutions are framed by implying blame - a process known as framing. We examined Australian media discourse on vaccine rejection over a period in which mandatory childhood vaccination policies were discussed and introduced, focusing on the common Australian pejorative term 'anti-vaxxer'. We mapped frequency of use from January 2008 to December 2018. We then searched Factiva for print media articles on childhood vaccination and parents published in that period, searching separately for articles using and not using 'anti-vaxxer' and variants. We constructed a set of 85 articles that did, and 85 articles date-matched that did not use the term to make comparisons and conducted a frame analysis of each set. 'Anti-vaxxer' was absent in Australian media discourse 2008-2010, rising to a peak of 247 articles using the term at the height of legislative change in 2017. Parents were framed as: 1) deviant "others"; 2) ignorant and in need of informing; 3) vulnerable and in need of protection from anti-vaccination activists; 4) thoughtful, critical, informed, and in need of agency and respect; 5) entitled, privileged and selfish; and finally, 6) lacking access to vaccination, rather than being unwilling. Articles using 'anti-vax' terms were more likely to negatively characterise non-vaccinating parents, while articles not including this language were more likely to frame them as thoughtful or lacking access. This study clearly demonstrates strategic use of pejoratives in the Australian mass media around a time of pressure for legislative change and conflation of anti-vaccination activists with non-vaccinating parents. We suggest fundamental changes to how non-vaccination is framed and dealt with in the media to curb polarization and fostering more respectful dialogue, and better social and public health outcomes.

Agent Based Model of Anti-Vaccination Movements: Simulations and Comparison with Empirical Data

Background: A realistic description of the social processes leading to the increasing reluctance to various forms of vaccination is a very challenging task. This is due to the complexity of the psychological and social mechanisms determining the positioning of individuals and groups against vaccination and associated activities. Understanding the role played by social media and the Internet in the current spread of the anti-vaccination (AV) movement is of crucial importance. Methods: We present novel, long-term Big Data analyses of Internet activity connected with the AV movement for such different societies as the US and Poland. The datasets we analyzed cover multiyear periods preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting the behavior of vaccine related Internet activity with high temporal resolution. To understand the empirical observations, in particular the mechanism driving the peaks of AV activity, we propose an Agent Based Model (ABM) of the AV movement. The model includes the interplay between multiple driving factors: contacts with medical practitioners and public vaccination campaigns, interpersonal communication, and the influence of the infosphere (social networks, WEB pages, user comments, etc.). The model takes into account the difference between the rational approach of the pro-vaccination information providers and the largely emotional appeal of anti-vaccination propaganda. Results: The datasets studied show the presence of short-lived, high intensity activity peaks, much higher than the low activity background. The peaks are seemingly random in size and time separation. Such behavior strongly suggests a nonlinear nature for the social interactions driving the AV movement instead of the slow, gradual growth typical of linear processes. The ABM simulations reproduce the observed temporal behavior of the AV interest very closely. For a range of parameters, the simulations result in a relatively small fraction of people refusing vaccination, but a slight change in critical parameters (such as willingness to post anti-vaccination information) may lead to a catastrophic breakdown of vaccination support in the model society, due to nonlinear feedback effects. The model allows the effectiveness of strategies combating the anti-vaccination movement to be studied. An increase in intensity of standard pro-vaccination communications by government agencies and medical personnel is found to have little effect. On the other hand, focused campaigns using the Internet and social media and copying the highly emotional and narrative-focused format used by the anti-vaccination activists can diminish the AV influence. Similar effects result from censoring and taking down anti-vaccination communications by social media platforms. The benefit of such tactics might, however, be offset by their social cost, for example, the increased polarization and potential to exploit it for political goals, or increased 'persecution' and 'martyrdom' tropes.

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.

Knowledge and Attitudes on Vaccination in Southern Romanians: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire

Vaccines are fundamental instruments upon which all modern medicine is hinged. This has recently come into the light because of the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to assess the knowledge and attitudes of the public regarding vaccination. To this end, a questionnaire, which was disseminated to the general population between 2017 and 2019, was used. We evaluated the responses from 1647 individuals (61% female, with a median age of 37 years, mostly from urban settings). Most respondents (85%) had children and were in favor of vaccination. Our study underlines the role that family physicians have in the education and information of citizens. A small, but considerable, number of respondents (108, 7.84% of those with children) had not vaccinated their children according to the national vaccination scheme. Deterrents were considered to be lack of information and fear of side effects. However, 167 of our respondents (12.12% out of 1377 respondents with children) said that their child experienced adverse events—most of which were mild local reactions. Alternatives to vaccination were proposed by some. In this study, we highlight the attitudes of respondents and multiple gaps in general knowledge, both of which may need to be addressed, especially in light of the current pandemic situation and past failed campaigns.

Preferences for a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia

In absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, testing, contact tracing and social restrictions are among the most powerful strategies adopted around the world to slow down the spread of the pandemic. Citizens of most countries are suffering major physical, psychological and economic distress. At this stage, a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is the most sustainable option to manage the current pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy by even a small subset of the population can undermine the success of this strategy.

The objective of this research is to investigate the vaccine characteristics that matter the most to Australian citizens and to explore the potential uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Through a stated preference experiment, preferences towards a COVID-19 vaccine of 2136 residents of the Australian states and territories were collected and analysed via a latent class model.

Results show that preferences for mild adverse cases, mode of administration, location of administration, price and effectiveness are heterogeneous. Conversely, preferences for immediacy and severe reactions are homogeneous, with respondents preferring a shorter period until vaccine is available and lower instances of severe side effects. The expected uptake of the vaccine is estimated under three different scenarios, with the value of 86% obtained for an average scenario. By calculating individual preferences, the willingness to pay is estimated for immediacy, effectiveness, mild and severe side effects.

How do patients and the public understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? A protocol for a thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative research

INTRODUCTION

Examining patient and public understanding of overtesting and overdiagnosis (OverTD) is vital for reducing the burden of OverTD. Studies from disparate contexts, disciplines and focusing on disparate healthcare issues have examined patient and public understanding of OverTD. A synthesis is needed to bring this literature together, examine common themes, strengthen conclusions and identify gaps. This will help steer further research, policy and practice to improve patient and public understanding of OverTD. The objective of this study is to synthesise qualitative research data about patient and public understanding of OverTD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A thematic meta-synthesis will be used to synthesise primary qualitative research and qualitative components of primary mixed-methods research about patient and public understanding of OverTD. Studies published in English will be included. These will be identified using systematic searches from inception to March 2020 in the Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases. Studies that satisfy eligibility criteria will be assessed for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Thematic meta-synthesis will comprise three stages: (1) line-by-line coding; (2) generation of descriptive themes and (3) generation of analytic themes. Confidence in the synthesis findings will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence (GRADE CERQual) approach. A summary of GRADE CERQual results will be presented alongside the key themes. Study eligibility screening, data extraction, analysis and the CASP and GRADE CERQual assessments will be undertaken independently by two review authors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this secondary analysis of published data. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and may be presented in conference papers and elsewhere.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020156838.