Legal approaches to promoting parental compliance with childhood immunization recommendations

Challenging the 'acceptable option': Public health's advocacy for continued care in the case of pediatric vaccine refusal

BACKGROUND

In the United States, nearly half of pediatricians dismiss or refuse to accept families that withhold consent from the administration of childhood vaccines. Since 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics has called patient dismissal in these cases "an acceptable option." Clinician dismissal and non-acceptance pose a problem to public health because they cluster under-vaccinated children in the practices that remain willing to treat such children, and they decrease access to routine care for children who cannot find practices willing to accept or retain them. This paper reports the emergence of a new consciousness about dismissal and non-acceptance policies in the leadership of a local health department (LHD) of a populous metropolitan county.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the prevalence and diversity of patient dismissal within Oakland County, Michigan and to measure shifts in clinicians' attitudes about dismissal following an educational intervention.

METHODS

A preliminary community survey was distributed to immunizing providers during April 2023 with 61 responses measuring the frequency and reasoning for dismissal policies. The results of the survey were used to inform a brief, evidence-backed educational intervention which was delivered in June 2023 to 82 participants from local pediatric medical offices.

RESULTS

The initial survey was completed by 61 immunizing providers, representing an estimated 37% of vaccinating practices in the county. Half said their practice "always" or "sometimes" dismisses patients due to vaccine refusal. After the educational intervention, the proportion of participants who agreed/strongly agreed with the statement "I believe patient dismissal for vaccine refusal is a good choice for public health" decreased from 36% to 18%.

CONCLUSION

The changes that we observed between the pre- and post-intervention surveys demonstrate the opportunity that exists for LHD leaders to enter the conversation around patient dismissal and nonacceptance and shed new light on this issue.

Attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal

AIMS

Investigating attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal in an area with insufficient vaccination coverage may help health authorities to assess which strategies for increasing vaccination coverage are appropriate. This study examines attitudes to vaccine mandates and asks questions regarding what kinds of sanctions could legitimately result from vaccination refusal. It seeks to find out if people's attitudes towards mandates and towards sanctions for vaccination refusal are related to their attitudes to vaccines and the degree of trust they feel towards health care professionals and health care authorities. The study also discusses how the observed attitudes towards mandates may be related to perceptions of autonomy, responsibility, and equitability.

METHODS

Data collection was carried out in Finland through an online survey in a region with suboptimal vaccine uptake. Statistical analysis was conducted on a sample of 1101 respondents, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural regression analysis.

RESULTS

Persons hold different views on mandates and sanctions. Importantly, the persons who support vaccination mandates and sanctions for vaccination refusal are to a great degree the same people who have positive attitudes to vaccines and high trust in health care professionals and health authorities.

CONCLUSION

Trust is a key factor which has a bearing on people's attitudes towards mandates and sanctions for noncompliance. A focus on the reasons for lack of trust, and on how to enhance trust, is a more feasible long-term way (than mandates) to promote large- scale compliance with childhood vaccine programmes in the studied country context.

Vaccine Policy in the United States

In an era when the success of the US vaccination policies to date is threatened by vaccine hesitancy, it is important for clinicians to have a working understanding of how vaccines are developed and recommended for use in the United States and how federal and state governments are coordinated to ensure a safe and effective vaccine supply. This article discusses the federal agencies involved in vaccine development and recommendation, other organizations involved in vaccine policy, and the role of vaccine-related public health law in promoting universal vaccination.

Clergy attitudes toward vaccines and vaccine advocacy: a qualitative study

Background: Recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases have affected members of religious communities. While major religions support vaccines, the views of individual clergy who practice and propagate major faith traditions are unclear. Our objective was to explore clergy attitudes toward vaccines and vaccine advocacy. Methods: In 2018-2019, we conducted qualitative interviews with clergy in Colorado and North Carolina. We inductively analyzed transcripts using a grounded theory approach, developing codes iteratively, resolving disagreements by consensus, and identifying themes. Results: We interviewed 16 clergy (1 Buddhist, 3 Catholic, 2 Jewish, 1 Hindu, 1 Islamic, 7 Protestant, and 1 Unity). Analyses yielded seven themes: attitudes toward vaccines, congregational needs, public health climate, perceived responsibility, comfort and competing interests, reported advocacy efforts, and clergy health advocacy goals. Most clergy had positive vaccination attitudes and were open to vaccine advocacy, although discomfort with medical concepts and competing interests in their congregations influenced whether many had chosen to advocate for vaccines. Over half reported promoting vaccination in various contexts. Conclusions: In our sample, U.S. clergy held complex attitudes toward vaccines, informed by experience and social norms as much as religious beliefs or Scriptures. Clergy may be open to vaccine advocacy, but a perceived lack of relevance in their faith communities or a lack of medical expertise may limit their advocacy efforts in diverse contexts. Amidst growing vaccine hesitancy, pediatricians could partner with clergy in their communities, answer questions about vaccines, raise awareness of recent outbreaks, and empower clergy in joint educational events.

Informed Consent to Vaccination: Theoretical, Legal, and Empirical Insights

Informed consent matters - so does protecting people from infectious diseases. This paper examines what the appropriate informed consent process for vaccines should look like and how the process is conceptualized by law and health authorities. Drawing on the extensive theoretical and empirical literature on informed consent and vaccination, this article sets out what an ideal informed consent process for vaccination would consist of, highlighting the need for autonomous decisions. To be autonomous, decisions need to be based on full, accessible information and reached without coercion. We suggest that the information provided must address the nature of the procedure - including benefits to the child, benefits to society, and risks. Parents should have their concerns and misconceptions addressed. The information needs to be accessible and include an opportunity to ask questions. Based on this ideal model we examined in detail the legal framework surrounding informed consent to vaccination and the process as conceptualized by health authorities in two countries, Israel and the United States, to assess whether they meet the requirements. These two countries are similar in some of their values, for example, the importance of individual autonomy, and face similar problems related to vaccine hesitancy. At the same time, there are meaningful differences in their vaccine policies and the current structures of their informed consent processes, allowing for a meaningful comparison. We found neither country met our ideal informed consent process, and suggested improvements both to the materials and to the processes used to obtain informed consent.

The MMR Vaccine and Autism

Autism is a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges. A report published in 1998, but subsequently retracted by the journal, suggested that measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. However, autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that has a strong genetic component with genesis before one year of age, when MMR vaccine is typically administered. Several epidemiologic studies have not found an association between MMR vaccination and autism, including a study that found that MMR vaccine was not associated with an increased risk of autism even among high-risk children whose older siblings had autism. Despite strong evidence of its safety, some parents are still hesitant to accept MMR vaccination of their children. Decreasing acceptance of MMR vaccination has led to outbreaks or resurgence of measles. Health-care providers have a vital role in maintaining confidence in vaccination and preventing suffering, disability, and death from measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Trends and Characteristics of Proposed and Enacted State Legislation on Childhood Vaccination Exemption, 2011-2017

Objectives. To examine trends and characteristics of proposed and enacted state legislation that would directly affect states' immunization exemption laws.Methods. We performed content analysis of proposed bills in state legislatures from 2011 to 2017. We classified bills as provaccination or antivaccination.Results. State legislators proposed 175 bills, with the volume increasing over time: 92 (53%) bills expanded access to exemptions, and 83 (47%) limited the ability to exempt. Of the 13 bills signed into law, 12 (92%) limited the ability to exempt. Bills that expanded access to exemptions were more likely to come from Republican legislators and Northeastern and Southern states.Conclusions. Although most proposed legislation would have expanded access to exemptions, bills that limited exemptions were more likely to be enacted into law. Legal barriers to exempt one's children from vaccination persist despite vaccine hesitancy, which is encouraging for public health.Public Health Implications. Most vaccine exemption laws introduced in state legislatures would pose threats to the public's health. There is a need for constituents to engage their elected legislators and advocate provaccination policies.