Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States

Vaccine Mandates and Cultural Safety

The issues and problems of mandatory vaccination policy and roll out in First Nations communities are unique and do not concern the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. These issues are also independent of more specific arguments of mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers as a condition of employment. As important as these issues are, they do not consider the complex politics of ongoing settler colonialism and First Nations community relations. In this paper, we also set aside the very real problems of disinformation, hesitancy, scientific and health illiteracy, and other concerns that drive vaccine hesitancy and refusal. These affect all communities, including First Nations communities. We, instead describe the dominant arguments in favour of mandatory vaccination and critique them in terms of the disputed legitimacy of Settler-Colonial decision-making as it impacts First Nations communities. We contend cultural responsiveness and safety-not state compulsion-must remain the first principles of any engagement-including vaccination-with First Nations Peoples, families, and communities.

Analysis of ethical considerations of COVID‑19 vaccination: lessons for future

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, different countries sought to manufacture and supply effective vaccines to control the disease and prevent and protect public health in society. The implementation of vaccination has created many ethical dilemmas for humans, which must be recognized and resolved. Therefore, the present study was conducted to analyze the ethical considerations in vaccination against COVID-19 from the perspective of service providers.

METHODS

The present qualitative research was conducted in 2022 in the north of Iran. The participants included 23 health workers with at least five years of work experience and members of the COVID-19 vaccination team. The data were initially collected through systematic semi-structured interviews, then snowball sampling and finally continued until data saturation. The next steps were transcription of interviews, identification of meaning units, coding, categorization based on similarity and symmetry, extraction of themes and the analysis of themes through content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis of participants' experiences led to the extraction of five main categories of themes and fifteen sub-categories of the ethical considerations of COVID-19 vaccination. Safe and standard vaccine production, vaccine supply, fairness, respect for autonomy, and accountability were the main categories. The subcategories included compliance with scientific and ethical procedures, effectiveness and profitability of vaccine, absence of severe adverse effects, allocation of resources for vaccine supply, vaccine availability, diversity and comprehensiveness of alternative vaccines, vaccination prioritization, prioritization of the vulnerable populations of society, autonomy of patient (equal rights), autonomy of community, autonomy of service providers, reporting correct information, reporting vaccine side effects, public trust and acceptance.

CONCLUSION

The health system managers should be adequately prepared to solve the ethical problems posed by COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, it is recommended to avoid haste in vaccination and pay more attention to vaccination safety standards, provide sufficient resources for a comprehensive vaccine supply, pay close attention to collective interests versus individual interests, and meet community needs.

Physicians' knowledge, attitude and perceptions towards vaccine-hesitant parents: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Research has shown that physicians are encountering an increase in vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs) numbers. This study examined physicians' vaccination knowledge, vaccine-related discussions with VHPs, beliefs about and responses to vaccine hesitancy, and challenges faced while discussing immunization with VHPs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, descriptive study was performed at King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in September 2020. The data were collected through a questionnaire distributed via email. The sample comprised 90 physicians who routinely treat children and reported they frequently have appropriate vaccine discussions when encountering VHPs.

RESULTS

Ninety participants (59% were females) completed the questionnaire. Of these, 37.8% were from family medicine, 7.8% from primary care, and 54.4% from paediatrics. The most discussed topics were vaccine necessity, reasons for vaccine refusal, and vaccine safety. Seventeen participants (18.8%) reported being extremely confident, and (42.2%) were confident in their vaccine-specific knowledge. Regarding confidence in communication skills, 22.2% reported being extremely confident and (45.6%) were confident. Determinants of higher confidence in the knowledge and communication skills were physician age (p = 0.001 and p = 0.0001, respectively), years of practice (p = 0.002 and (p = 0.005), and patients seen per workday (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.024). Other factors such as physician sex (p = 0.062), the field of practice (p = 0.329), and hours of work per week (p = 0.061) were not significantly different. Forty-six (51%) physicians sometimes find it challenging to conduct appropriate vaccine-related discussions because of having too many other issues to discuss during the consultation. Furthermore, 53 (59%) participants agreed/strongly agreed that parental refusal to vaccinate would raise suspicions of negligence. On the other hand, 59 (65%) disagreed/strongly disagreed that parental refusal of vaccines is a parental right. Participants expressed the need to refer VHPs to a specialised advisory clinic with excellent experience and negotiation skills to overcome the challenges.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine safety and necessity are the topics of most concern to VHPs, and a knowledgeable physician with competent communication skills is critical in responding to such situations. This study highlights the most reported barriers to successful vaccine-related discussions. It raises underlying ethical principles such as parental autonomy and the need to train physicians in VHPs. To train physians for succucful vaccine counceling of VHPs.

Taking Risks to Protect Others-Pediatric Vaccination and Moral Responsibility

The COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-2022 raised ethical questions concerning the balance between individual autonomy and the protection of the population, vulnerable individuals and the healthcare system. Pediatric COVID-19 vaccination differs from, for example, measles vaccination in that children were not as severely affected. The main question concerning pediatric vaccination has been whether the autonomy of parents outweighs the protection of the population. When children are seen as mature enough to be granted autonomy, questions arise about whether they have the right to decline vaccination and who should make the decision when parents disagree with each other and/or the child. In this paper, I argue that children should be encouraged to not only take responsibility for themselves, but for others. The discussion of pediatric vaccination in cases where this kind of risk-benefit ratio exists extends beyond the 2020-2022 pandemic. The pandemic entailed a question that is crucial for the future of public health as a global problem, that is, to what extent children should be seen as responsible decision-makers who are capable of contributing to its management and potential solution. I conclude that society should encourage children to cultivate such responsibility, conceived as a virtue, in the context of public health.

Why Turkish Parents Refuse Childhood Vaccination? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Anti-vaccination is spreading among parents. In 2017, 23000 families in Turkey refused vaccinations for their children. Meanwhile an increase in infectious diseases was observed, which might be caused by vaccination rejection. The reasons why families do not vaccinate their children may be very different, such as side effects, or advocation for "healthy life" by gurus. However, the real reasons for vaccine refusal are unknown. Our aim is to determine the reasons for anti-vaccination in Turkey.

METHODS

In order to reveal the real reasons for not taking the vaccine, we planned to conduct interviews with the representatives of the vaccine rejection group using qualitative research methodology with the "grounded theory" method. We searched some anti-vaccination blogs to find candidates for interviews. Within the scope of our study, parental concerns about vaccinations were classified by analyzing the data obtained from semi-structured questions and interviews recorded with voice recorders in face-to-face interviews with 21 parents in 13 cities of Turkey.

RESULTS

The obtained findings were classified under the headings of ''mistrust'', ''vaccine efficacy-importance'', ''decision-making processes - bases'', and ''law-ethics''. Mistrust was the main theme, almost singularly, as the most important reason for vaccine rejection. The salient reasons for mistrusts were: Companies which produce vaccines especially international companies because of conspiratory beliefs; health authorities, because of the belief about non-transparency in epidemiologic data, immunization council etc. and healthcare professionals, because of their non-communicative and non-concerned attitude.

CONCLUSION

Mistrust is hard to overcome. The beliefs of the patients cannot be easily changed. As a result of our study, we made some recommendations for health authorities, healthcare professionals, companies and other related stakeholders.

Persuading the "Movable Middle": Characteristics of effective messages to promote routine and COVID-19 vaccinations for adults and children - The impact of COVID-19 on beliefs and attitudes

PURPOSE

We sought to 1) explore trusted sources for vaccine information, 2) describe persuasive characteristics of trusted messages promoting routine and COVID-19 vaccines for children and adults and 3) explore how the pandemic has impacted attitudes and beliefs about routine vaccinations. We conducted a mixed method cross-sectional study between May 3-June 14, 2021 including a survey and six focus groups among a sub-set of survey respondents. A total of 1,553 survey respondents (from which n = 33 participated in the focus groups) including adults without children under age nineteen years (n = 582) and parents with children under age nineteen years (n = 971).

RESULTS

Primary care providers, family, and credible sources, characterized as known and well-established entities, were top sources of vaccine information. Neutrality, honesty, and having a trusted source to rely on in sorting through volumes of sometimes conflicting information were highly valued. Trustworthy qualities about sources included: 1) expertise, 2) fact-based, 3) unbiased, and 4) having an established process for sharing information. Because of the evolving nature of the pandemic, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccine and sources of COVID-19 information differed from typical views about routine vaccines. Of 1,327 (85.4 %) survey respondents, 12.7 % and 9.4 % of adults and parents cited that the pandemic impacted their attitudes and beliefs. Among these respondents, 8 % of adults and 3 % of parents cited more favorable attitudes and beliefs about getting vaccinated with routine vaccines because of the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine attitudes and beliefs which inform intent to vaccinate can change and differ among different vaccines. Messaging should be tailored to resonate with parents and adults to improve vaccine uptake.

Identifying intervention strategies to improve HPV vaccine decision-making using behaviour change theory

Although the HPV vaccine is highly safe and effective, its uptake is sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. There is therefore a need to identify appropriate interventions that will increase HPV vaccine acceptance by parents. In this study, we took a systematic approach to understand the factors that influence HPV vaccine uptake by parents of adolescent girls in Ireland to define suitable behaviour change interventions that would support positive vaccine decision-making in the future. Specifically, we conducted semi-structured interviews, used a Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)-based topic guide, to gain insight into the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and current behaviours of parents with respect to their HPV vaccine decision. Transcripts were analysed using the TDF. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify relevant intervention functions and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1), to identify relevant intervention techniques. All parents discussed the essential role of healthcare providers in vaccine decision-making. Complacency and confidence were important factors in decision-making by vaccine hesitant parents. Five BCW intervention functions were identified as appropriate, namely; education; persuasion; environmental restructuring; modelling and enablement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate HPV vaccine decision-making using behaviour change theory and identify suitable intervention strategies to promote positive vaccine decision-making using this approach.

Associations between Vaccination Behavior and Trust in Information Sources Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines under Emergency Approval in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study

We examined the association between COVID-19 vaccination behavior and trust in COVID-19-related information sources during the initial period of COVID-19 vaccination in Japan. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in August 2021, 5 months after the start of COVID-19 vaccination for the general public under emergency approval. Participants were recruited using non-probability quota sampling from among Japanese residents who were under a declared state of emergency. Sociodemographic data, vaccination behavior, and levels of trust in eight media sources of information and three interpersonal information sources were assessed using an online survey form. A total of 784 participants completed the survey. The results of multiple logistic regression analysis showed that age, household income, underlying medical conditions, and living with family were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior. Regarding COVID-19 vaccine information sources, trust in public health experts as a source of media information and primary care physicians as a source of interpersonal information showed significantly positive associations with COVID-19 vaccination behavior (odds ratio [OR] = 1.157, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.017-1.31; OR = 1.076; 95% CI 1.006-1.150, respectively). Increasing trust in public health experts and primary care physicians and disseminating vaccine information from these sources will help promote vaccination under emergency approval.

Trust in Doctors, Positive Attitudes, and Vaccination Behavior: The Role of Doctor-Patient Communication in H1N1 Vaccination

Although there is a wide variety of scientific evidence that demonstrates the benefits of vaccination on a multitude of diseases, vaccination rates remain low while misperceptions about vaccines are on the rise. The primary objective of the present study is to examine the role of doctor-patient communication and vaccination. We test the impact of doctor-patient communication on trust in doctors' vaccine recommendations as a mediator, to understand the mechanisms leading to positive vaccination attitudes, and ultimately leading to actual H1N1 vaccination behavior. We use data from a nationally representative U.S. sample from one of the Multimedia Audience Research Systems (MARS) data sets collected by Kantar Media. Our results demonstrate the crucial role of doctor-patient communication in building patients' trust in doctors, which in turn positively impact vaccination attitudes and H1N1 vaccination behavior. Unlike other preventive health measures, getting vaccines after a pandemic is a critical decision because these vaccines are previously unknown. Our finding implies that verified communication from the physician's office may be one of the effective strategies during or after a pandemic. Our findings have implications for public health organizations to incorporate effective vaccination communication and could have critical implications for the COVID-19 vaccination.

Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus?

Lack of vaccine confidence can contribute to drops in vaccination coverage and subsequent outbreaks of diseases like measles and polio. Low trust in vaccines is attributed to a combination of factors, including lack of understanding, vaccine scares, flawed policies, social media and mistrust of vaccine manufacturers, scientists and decision-makers. The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare societies' vulnerability to new pathogens and the critical role of vaccines (and their acceptability) in containing this and future pandemics. It has also put science at the forefront of the response, with several governments relying on academics to help shape policy and communicate with the public. Against this backdrop, protecting public trust in scientists and scientific output is arguably more important than ever. Yet, conflicts of interest (CoI) in biomedical research remain ubiquitous and harmful, and measures to curb them have had limited success. There is also evidence of bias in industry-sponsored vaccine studies and academics are voicing concerns about the risks of working in a CoI prevalent research area. Here, we set out to challenge established thinking with regard to vaccine confidence, by shifting the gaze from a deficit in public understanding towards probity in research relationships and suggesting an alternative and perhaps complementary strategy for addressing vaccine mistrust. We argue that a concerted effort needs to be made to revisit the norms that undergird contemporary vaccine research, coupled with a willingness of all stakeholders to reimagine those relationships with an emphasis on demonstrating trustworthiness and probity.

Case for persuasion in parental informed consent to promote rational vaccine choices

There have been calls for mandatory vaccination legislation to be introduced into the UK in order to tackle the national and international rise of vaccine-preventable disease. While some countries have had some success associated with mandatory vaccination programmes, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) insist this is not a suitable option for the UK, a country which has seen historical opposition to vaccine mandates. There is a lack of comprehensive data to demonstrate a direct link between mandatory vaccination legislation and increased uptake. While there are examples whereby there has been an improvement, some studies suggest that comparable results can be obtained by strongly recommending vaccinations instead. The RCPCH insist that healthcare workers are ideally placed to engage and inform parents to make every interaction a 'vaccine opportunity'. This paper calls for a principled, rational approach to interpretations of autonomy which underpin parental informed consent. MacLean's concept of mutual persuasion could be a vehicle to ensuring parents are suitably informed of both the material risks associated with vaccine choices and to consider the rationality of their decisions, while ultimately upholding parental autonomy. It is argued that this, alongside infrastructural improvement, could create a more sustainable, long-term improvement in childhood vaccination rates in the UK than mandatory vaccination.

Provider perspectives on communication and dismissal policies with HPV vaccine hesitant parents

Parental vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern. Less is known about provider or practice characteristics that encounter HPV-specific vaccine-hesitant parents, the providers' confidence in responding to HPV vaccine concerns, and the attitudes and use of vaccine dismissal policies (i.e., removing patients from the practice). North Texas providers completed an online survey. Dependent variables assessed: (1) percentage of HPV vaccine-hesitant parents encountered in practice defined as substantive, or high (≥11%, or among more than one out of ten adolescent patient encounters) versus low (≤10%) levels; (2) confidence in responding to 11 HPV vaccine concerns; (3) attitudes and use of vaccine dismissal policies. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. Among 156 providers, 29% reported high HPV vaccine hesitancy (≥11% of patient population). Overall, providers reported being "very confident" in addressing vaccine concerns (mean: 3.37 out of 4, SD: 0.57). Mean confidence scores were significantly higher for white (vs. non-white) providers and for pediatricians (vs. family practitioners). Providers were least confident in responding to parents' religious/personal beliefs (69%). Some providers (25%) agreed with policies that dismissed vaccine-hesitant parents after repeated counseling attempts. More providers used dismissal policies for childhood (19%) than adolescent (10%) immunizations. Provider communication training should include parental religious/personal beliefs to effectively address HPV vaccine hesitancy. Other regions should examine their HPV-specific vaccine hesitancy levels to understand how the use of dismissal policies might vary between adolescent and childhood immunizations.

Centralized Reminder/Recall for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Findings From Two States-A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using Immunization Information Systems has been effective in increasing childhood immunization rates. Previously, C-R/R using autodialer for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine did not raise rates. We assessed C-R/R for HPV vaccine using other modalities and focused on younger adolescents.

METHODS

We conducted a three-arm pragmatic RCT in randomly sampled primary care practices in Colorado (n = 88) and New York (n = 136), proportionate to where adolescents received care. We randomized, within practices, adolescents aged 11-14 years who had not completed the HPV vaccination series to receive C-R/R using different modalities (Colorado: autodialer, mail, or control; New York: autodialer, text, or control). Up to two reminders were sent in intervention arms for each dose needed between 2/2017 and 12/2018.

RESULTS

In Colorado, no significant differences were found for series initiation (31.3% control, 31.1% autodial, 31.8% mail), with slight improvement for series completion in the autodialer arm (29.7% control, 31.1% autodialer, p = .04) but not the mail arm (30.9%, p = .06). No significant differences were found in New York for series initiation (24.1% for all arms) or completion (17.1% control, 16.9% autodial, 17.9% text). Adjusted analyses showed higher completion rates for the autodialer arm in Colorado but not for other arms. In Colorado, C-R/R reduced time to series completion by around 2 months. Cost per adolescent was $1.81 for mail; under $.40 for all other modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R has less benefit for raising HPV vaccination rates than other studies have noted for childhood immunizations, although it may quicken series completion at little cost.

Should vaccination be mandated? Individuals' perceptions on mandatory vaccination in Greece

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore factors that influence individuals' attitudes towards mandatory vaccination in Greece.

METHODS

A nationally representative cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted via a random multistage selection process in October 2019 in Greece. The survey was designed to obtain information about whether vaccination should be mandated or not among adults 18 years of age or older. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the association between individuals' sociodemographic, contextual and clinical characteristics, utilization, satisfaction, and trust in the healthcare system and providers and their preference over mandatory vaccination.

RESULTS

A total of 901 participants fully completed the survey (response rate 90%-901/1001). About 85% of the respondents supported mandatory vaccination. Individuals who used preventive services more often compared to those who never or rarely used such, those who reported increased trust in official healthcare authorities' guidelines and recommendations compared to those who reported no trust and those who had underage children living in the household were significantly more likely to support mandatory vaccination. No differences were observed for sociodemographic factors and mandatory vaccination support.

CONCLUSION

This survey revealed that most Greek citizens support mandatory vaccination, which was critically affected by the utilization of preventive services and trust in healthcare authorities. Our results suggest that healthcare policy interventions should promote mandatory vaccination through multi-level initiatives to improve healthcare providers' and the general public's understanding of the value of vaccination.

Absolutely Right and Relatively Good: Consequentialists See Bioethical Disagreement in a Relativist Light

BACKGROUND

Contemporary societies are rife with moral disagreement, resulting in recalcitrant disputes on matters of public policy. In the context of ongoing bioethical controversies, are uncompromising attitudes rooted in beliefs about the nature of moral truth?

METHODS

To answer this question, we conducted both exploratory and confirmatory studies, with both a convenience and a nationally representative sample (total N = 1501), investigating the link between people's beliefs about moral truth (their metaethics) and their beliefs about moral value (their normative ethics).

RESULTS

Across various bioethical issues (e.g., medically-assisted death, vaccine hesitancy, surrogacy, mandatory organ conscription, or genetically modified crops), consequentialist attitudes were associated with weaker beliefs in an objective moral truth. This association was not explained by domain-general reflectivity, theism, personality, normative uncertainty, or subjective knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

We find a robust link between the way people characterize prescriptive disagreements and their sensibility to consequences. In addition, both societal consensus and personal conviction contribute to objectivist beliefs, but these effects appear to be asymmetric, i.e., stronger for opposition than for approval.

What Affects Maternal Response to Measles Vaccinations? Examining the Health Beliefs Model (HBM)

Background: Renewed measles outbreaks in recent years indicate that despite the routine availability of vaccines for a disease that is considered contagious, dangerous and deadly, many anti-vaccinationists do not vaccinate their children, which consequently endangers public health. This study aimed to investigate the factors that influence mothers to vaccinate their children, and whether the Health Belief Model (HBM) could predict compliance or non-compliance. Methods: This was a quantitative correlational research, using a 40-item questionnaire administered to 181 mothers in Israel. Results: The findings indicated two main factors that affected mothers’ intention to vaccinate their children against measles: first, their perception of the vaccine’s advantages, and second, their perception of the severity of the disease. It was also found that the HBM variables significantly affected the intention to administer vaccines. Conclusion: Consequently, raising public awareness of the vaccine’s advantages and importance to preventing mass infection, as well as attempts by the health system and practitioners to understand the motivations of anti-vaccinationists (including health beliefs and cultural sensitivities) could significantly increase the percentage of vaccinated children, and eradicate the measles epidemic.

Ethics of Vaccination in Childhood-A Framework Based on the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics

Although vaccination is recognised as the top public health achievement of the twentieth century, unequivocal consensus about its beneficence does not exist among the general population. In countries with well-established immunisation programmes, vaccines are “victims of their own success”, because low incidences of diseases now prevented with vaccines diminished the experience of their historical burdens. Increasing number of vaccine-hesitant people in recent years threatens, or even effectively disables, herd immunity levels of the population and results in outbreaks of previously already controlled diseases. We aimed to apply a framework for ethical analysis of vaccination in childhood based on the four principles of biomedical ethics (respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice) to provide a comprehensive and applicable model on how to address the ethical aspects of vaccination at both individual and societal levels. We suggest finding an “ethical equilibrium”, which means that the degree of respect for parents’ autonomy is not constant, but variable; it shall depend on the level of established herd immunity and it is specific for every society. When the moral obligation of individuals to contribute to herd immunity is not fulfilled, mandatory vaccination policies are ethically justified, because states bear responsibility to protect herd immunity as a common good.

Vaccine hesitancy among general practitioners in Southern France and their reluctant trust in the health authorities

Purpose: Vaccine hesitancy is common in France, including among general practitioners (GPs).  We aimed to understand vaccine hesitant GPs’ views towards vaccines. Method: We conducted in-depth interviews that were thematically analysed. Result: We found that, facilitated by health scandals and vaccine controversies—that according to participants were not effectively handled by health authorities—the implicit contract existing between health authorities and GPs has been ruptured. This contract implies that health authorities support GPs in making vaccine recommendations by addressing GPs’ own concerns, providing them with adequate and up-to-date information and advice, and involving them in vaccine decision-making. In turn, GPs encourage vaccination to reach vaccine coverage targets. Conclusion: The rupture of this implicit contract has led to a breach in trust in the health authorities and the vaccines that they recommend.

Rhetorical Appeals and Tactics in New York Times Comments About Vaccines: Qualitative Analysis

Background

Improving persuasion in response to vaccine skepticism is a long-standing problem. Elective nonvaccination emerging from skepticism about vaccine safety and efficacy jeopardizes herd immunity, exposing those who are most vulnerable to the risk of serious diseases.

Objective

This article analyzes vaccine sentiments in the New York Times as a way of improving understanding of why existing persuasive approaches may be ineffective and offers insight into how existing methods might be improved. We categorize pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine arguments, offering an in-depth analysis of pro-vaccine appeals and tactics in particular to enhance current understanding of arguments that support vaccines.

Methods

Qualitative thematic analyses were used to analyze themes in rhetorical appeals across 808 vaccine-specific comments. Pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine comments were categorized to provide a broad analysis of the overall context of vaccine comments across viewpoints, with in-depth rhetorical analysis of pro-vaccine comments to address current gaps in understanding of pro-vaccine arguments in particular.

Results

Appeals across 808 anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine comments were similar, though these appeals diverged in tactics and conclusions. Anti-vaccine arguments were more heterogeneous, deploying a wide range of arguments against vaccines. Additional analysis of pro-vaccine comments reveals that these comments use rhetorical strategies that could be counterproductive to producing persuasion. Pro-vaccine comments more frequently used tactics such as ad hominem arguments levied at those who refuse vaccines or used appeals to science to correct beliefs in vaccine skepticism, both of which can be ineffective when attempting to persuade a skeptical audience.

Conclusions

Further study of pro-vaccine argumentation appeals and tactics could illuminate how persuasiveness could be improved in online forums.

"We fear the unknown": Emergence, route and transfer of hesitancy and misinformation among HPV vaccine accepting mothers

Although licensed since 2006, US HPV vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Since mothers are decision-makers for young adults' vaccination, assessing ongoing knowledge deficits and misunderstanding among parents is important for determining the content and mode of interventions to reach parents. Guided by the social-ecological model and health belief model, 30 interviews with vaccine accepting mothers in the U.S. Midwest were conducted from January through June 2020. Researchers examined ecological determinants of acceptance, perceptions of vaccination barriers, and perceived cues to action for empowering other mothers to vaccinate their children. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results found vaccine accepting mothers exhibited ongoing misconceptions and negative attitudes toward HPV vaccine. Physicians, peers and the media were identified as primary pro-HPV vaccine sources, yet hesitancy and misinformation occurred with each source. Trust in provider recommendation was the primary source for decision-making, yet trust was still lacking. While mothers looked to the media for HPV information, the media were identified as the main source of confusion and distrust. Results show that parents who accept the HPV vaccine can still be hesitant. Thus, mothers who have vaccinated their children for HPV may still need attitudinal and educational training prior to establishing them as role models in interventions for empowering other parents to vaccinate their children. Results showing that the media sow confusion and hesitancy also call for more attention to social media policies to guard against misinformation about the HPV vaccine.

A review of vaccine effects on women in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

The pandemic situation triggered by the spread of COVID-19 has caused great harm worldwide. More than six million people have been infected, and more than 360,000 of them have died. This is the worst catastrophe suffered by mankind in recent history. In the face of this severe disaster, people all over the world are frightened of the prospect of facing an outbreak or an annual recurrence. However, the development of a vaccine will help control the impact of COVID-19. Women in particular have been more seriously affected by the pandemic. Since the pressure and physical load they suffer are often greater than what men endure, women are more threatened by COVID-19. Though women have a poorer quality of life and work and face worse economic conditions, they also tend to have better physiological immunity than men, which can ease the effect of COVID-19. The early development of a vaccine against COVID-19 is an important issue that must take into consideration women's better immune response to the virus along with the technique of hormone regulation. Relevant research has been conducted on female-specific vaccines in the past, and women's issues were considered during those clinical trials to ensure that complications and antibody responses were positive and effective in women. National policies should also propose good strategies for women to be vaccinated. This could improve consciousness, give women a better vaccination experience, enhance their willingness to vaccinate, and protect them from COVID-19 infection.

Pox Parties for Grannies? Chickenpox, Exogenous Boosting, and Harmful Injustices

Some societies tolerate or encourage high levels of chickenpox infection among children to reduce rates of shingles among older adults. This tradeoff is unethical. The varicella zoster virus (VZV) causes both chickenpox and shingles. After people recover from chickenpox, VZV remains in their nerve cells. If their immune systems become unable to suppress the virus, they develop shingles. According to the Exogenous Boosting Hypothesis (EBH), a person's ability to keep VZV suppressed can be 'boosted' through exposure to active chickenpox infections. We argue that even if this hypothesis were true, immunization policies that discourage routine childhood varicella vaccination in order to prevent shingles for other people are unethical. Such policies harm children and treat them as mere means for the benefit of others, and are inconsistent with how parents should treat their children and physicians should treat their patients. These policies also seem incompatible with institutional transparency.

Prevalence and characteristics of HPV vaccine hesitancy among parents of adolescents across the US

BACKGROUND

While many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination.

METHODS

In April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11-17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal.

RESULTS

2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent's health-care provider's recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal.

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.

Parental Hesitancy About Routine Childhood and Influenza Vaccinations: A National Survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy as 1 of the 10 leading threats to global health, yet there is limited current national data on prevalence of hesitancy among US parents. Among a nationally representative sample of US parents, we aimed to (1) assess and compare prevalence of hesitancy and factors driving hesitancy for routine childhood and influenza vaccination and (2) examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and hesitancy for routine childhood or influenza vaccination.

METHODS

In February 2019, we surveyed families with children using the largest online panel generating representative US samples. After weighting, we assessed hesitancy using a modified 5-point Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and labeled parents as hesitant if they scored >3.

RESULTS

A total of 2176 of 4445 parents sampled completed the survey (response rate 49%). Hesitancy prevalence was 6.1% for routine childhood and 25.8% for influenza vaccines; 12% strongly and 27% somewhat agreed they had concerns about serious side effects of both routine childhood and influenza vaccines. A total of 70% strongly agreed that routine childhood vaccines are effective versus 26% for influenza vaccine (P < .001). In multivariable models, an educational level lower than a bachelor's degree and household income <400% of the federal poverty level predicted hesitancy about both routine childhood and influenza vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 1 in 15 US parents are hesitant about routine childhood vaccines, whereas >1 in 4 are hesitant about influenza vaccine. Furthermore, 1 in 8 parents are concerned about vaccine safety for both routine childhood and influenza vaccines, and only 1 in 4 believe influenza vaccine is effective. Vaccine hesitancy, particularly for influenza vaccine, is prevalent in the United States.

A qualitative study examining pediatric clinicians' perceptions of delayed vaccine schedules

OBJECTIVE

To explore pediatric clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, and perceived social norms about the impact of delayed vaccine schedules on the clinical management of their patients.

METHODS

We conducted 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews with academic (Infectious Diseases, Emergency Medicine) and community pediatric clinicians (General Pediatrics) to explore clinicians' perspectives on how delayed schedules influence their clinical management of patients. The interview guide was based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. We analyzed interview transcripts using both an inductive and deductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The pediatric clinicians in our study overwhelmingly supported the recommended schedule, sought guidance on approaches to navigating conversations with vaccine hesitant families, and desired more evidence to effectively promote on-time vaccination. Clinicians described how delayed schedules have consequences for sick children (e.g., increased antibiotics, laboratory tests, emergency department visits) and healthy children (e.g., increased vaccine visits, out-of-pocket costs, fears among children receiving frequent shots). Clinicians stated that delayed schedules also negatively impact pediatric practices (e.g., increased time counseling patients, staff burden, clogged clinic space, unpredictable vaccine utilization, costs).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric clinicians perceive that delayed vaccine schedules negatively affect patients, pediatric practices, the healthcare system, and society. Future research should quantify the consequences of delayed schedules and identify strategies that promote vaccine adherence. Results from future studies can better support clinician-parent conversations about vaccine hesitancy, guide decision-makers about practice-level approaches to vaccine schedules, and advise payors and policymakers regarding vaccine-related policies.

Laws About Transparent School Vaccination Reporting: Public Health Context and Ethics

In response to a recent surge in vaccine exemptions for school-aged children, advocacy for transparency regarding school vaccination rates has gained momentum in the sphere of public policy and legislation. We explore the public health context for transparency-focused school vaccination reporting laws and recent legislative successes and failures. We then provide an ethical analysis of policy that mandates publicly accessible, granular reporting of school vaccination rates.The ethical justification for this type of policy is robust. Although there is no evidence demonstrating its effects on public health, transparent school vaccination reporting has the potential to enhance individual and public decision-making, especially concerning the protection of children with compromised immune systems. This policy also offers the benefit of preserving the autonomy of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children.Policymakers in all states should support passage of this type of legislation along with other effective vaccination policies, including evidence-based vaccine education for parents who seek exemptions and reimbursement for clinicians who provide vaccine-related counseling.

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.

Resurgence of Vaccine-Preventable Disease: Ethics in the Pediatric Emergency Department

After a decades-long reduction in vaccine-preventable illnesses worldwide, there has been a reappearance of childhood illnesses once thought to be eradicated. This resurgence in illnesses such as polio and measles is a consequence of multifactorial events leading to decreased vaccination rates. A lack of resources in poor and war-torn countries, coupled with increasing global travel, and decisions to delay or defer vaccinations because of inaccurate studies further emphasized by media have combined to result in current state of frequent local and widespread epidemics, specifically the current outbreak of measles. As providers in the pediatric emergency department, we are often the first to encounter children manifesting these diseases. It is imperative that we understand the circumstances leading to these encounters, so that we can have engaged conversations with families, gain an understanding of their motivations, dispel any misinformed beliefs, and encourage positive health behaviors for their children.

Two unresolved issues in community engagement for field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes

There is an emerging consensus among scientists, ethicists, and public health officials that substantive and effective engagement with communities and the wider public is required prior to releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment. While there is little disagreement about the need for community and public engagement prior to releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment, two important issues have not been resolved, namely: defining the community and dealing with potential conflicts between the community and the wider public. This commentary addresses these unresolved issues.

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.

Do traditional economic theories of free riding behavior explain spatial clustering of HPV vaccine uptake?

Rationale

Geographic clusters of low vaccination uptake reduce the population-level efficacy of vaccination programs. However, little is known about the mechanisms that drive geographic patterns in vaccination rates. Traditional economic theory considers vaccination as a classic public good and suggests that free riding-individuals taking advantage of public goods by relying on others' immunization behavior without contributing toward them-is a primary cause of low vaccination rates. However, behavioral economics suggests that free riding does not fully explain observed individual behavior, and the presence of both high and low clusters of vaccination rates suggest that this theory alone does not fully explain geographic patterns of vaccination.

Objective

We assessed geographic clustering of HPV vaccination uptake and examined the evidence for or against free riding in HPV vaccination decisions.

Methods

We analyzed HPV vaccination decisions of low-income adolescent females (N = 601) residing in urban neighborhoods in Dallas, Texas, USA during 2011-2012. Spatial econometric models were estimated to assess the relationship between neighborhood vaccination rates and individual vaccination decisions.

Results

We found a positive and significant relationship between individual HPV vaccination choices and the average neighborhood vaccination rate at the time parents were making vaccine decisions for their adolescent daughters while controlling for neighborhood sorting and other confounders.

Conclusion

Individuals were more likely to complete the HPV vaccination series when others in their neighborhood had already completed the series. We do not find evidence for free riding in HPV vaccination decisions.

Vaccine refusal - what we need to know

OBJECTIVE

Opposition to vaccines is not a new event, and appeared soon after the introduction of the smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century. The purpose of this review is to educate healthcare professionals about vaccine hesitancy and refusal, its causes and consequences, and make suggestions to address this challenge.

SOURCE OF DATA

A comprehensive and non-systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, LILACS, and ScieLo databases from 1980 to the present day, using the terms "vaccine refusal," "vaccine hesitancy," and "vaccine confidence." The publications considered as the most relevant by the author were critically selected.

SYNTHESIS OF DATA

The beliefs and arguments of the anti-vaccine movements have remained unchanged in the past two centuries, but new social media has facilitated the dissemination of information against vaccines. Studies on the subject have intensified after 2010, but the author did not retrieve any published studies to quantify this behavior in Brazil. The nomenclature on the subject (vaccine hesitancy) was standardized by the World Health Organization in 2012. Discussions have been carried out on the possible causes of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, as well as on the behavior of families and health professionals. Proposals for interventions to decrease public doubts, clarify myths, and improve confidence in vaccines have been made. Guides for the health care professional to face the problem are emerging.

CONCLUSIONS

The healthcare professional is a key element to transmit information, resolve doubts and increase confidence in vaccines. They must be prepared to face this new challenge.

PERCEPTIONS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF VACCINATION AND VACCINE REFUSAL IN A MEDICAL SCHOOL

Objective:

To identify the perception of medical students and physicians on the importance of vaccination and the risks of vaccine refusal.

Methods:

Cross-sectional study with application of questionnaires about vaccines, vaccine refusal and its repercussions on public and individual health. A sample of 92 subjects was selected from a private medical school: group 1 (53 students from first to fourth grades) and group 2 (39 physicians). Data collected were tabulated in the Microsoft Excel Program and analyzed by Fisher’s exact test.

Results:

Both groups considered the National Immunization Program reliable and recognized the importance of vaccines, but 64.2% of students and 38.5% of physicians are unaware of the vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in the basic immunization schedule. Most of the interviewees had a personal vaccine registry, but not all had received the 2015 influenza vaccine. Both groups had known people who refused vaccines for themselves or for their children (respectively, 54.7 and 43.3% of students and 59.0 and 41.0% of physicians). The total of 48.7% of physicians had already assisted vaccine refusers. Appointed causes of vaccine refusal were: fear of adverse events, philosophical and religious reasons and lack of knowledge about severity and frequency of diseases. Ethical aspects of vaccine refusal and legal possibilities of vaccine requirements for children are not consensus.

Conclusions:

Medical students and doctors are not adequately vaccinated and have queries about the vaccination schedule, vaccine safety and vaccine refusal. Improving these professionals’ knowledge is an important strategy to maintain vaccine coverage and address vaccine refusal ethically.

Informal coercion as a neglected form of communication in psychiatric settings in Germany and Switzerland

AIMS

Informal coercion is a frequently used form of communication among mental health professionals to influence treatment outcomes. This study investigates the recognition, attitude, and application of different forms of informal coercion by mental health professionals.

METHODS

Mental health professionals of five psychiatric institutions in Germany and Switzerland (n = 424) took part in an online survey assessing the recognition of, attitudes towards, and application of different forms of informal coercion.

RESULTS

Mental health professionals did not recognize the extent of informal coercion adequately; especially stronger forms were underestimated. Recognition and application of informal coercion was predicted by attitudes towards coercion. Furthermore, there were differences between profession of participants regarding the recognition and application of informal coercion.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to realize that the extent of applied informal coercion in therapeutic communication is often not recognized by practitioners, although it might interfere with a sound therapeutic relationship.

To close the childhood immunization gap, we need a richer understanding of parents' decision-making

Vaccination is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful public health interventions globally and in most high-income countries childhood vaccination coverage rates are moderately high. Yet in many instances, immunisation rates remain below aspirational targets and have shown only modest progress toward those targets in recent years, despite concerted efforts to improve uptake. In part, coverage rates reflect individual parents' vaccination attitudes and decisions and, because vaccination decision-making is complex and context-specific, it remains challenging at individual and community levels to assist parents to make positive decisions. Consequently, in the search for opportunities to improve immunisation coverage, there has been a renewed research focus on parents' decision-making. This review provides an overview of the literature surrounding parents' vaccination decision-making, offering suggestions for where efforts to increase vaccination coverage should be targeted and identifying areas for further research.

Parents' Support for School-Entry Requirements for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A National Study

BACKGROUND

The number of states proposing school-entry requirements for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has increased over the last decade. However, data are currently limited regarding parents' support of such laws. We sought to obtain the first national estimates of parents' support of HPV vaccination school-entry requirements.

METHODS

A national sample of 1,501 parents of 11- to 17-year-old children completed a web-based survey between November 2014 and January 2015. Analyses used multivariable logistic regression to assess correlates of support for school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination.

RESULTS

Overall, 21% of parents agreed that laws requiring HPV vaccination for school attendance "are a good idea," and 54% disagreed. If school-entry requirements included opt-out provisions, agreement increased to 57%, and only 21% disagreed. Parents more often agreed with requirements without opt-out provisions if they were Hispanic [OR = 1.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-2.22], believed HPV vaccine was as or more important than other adolescent vaccines (OR = 2.76; 95% CI, 1.98-3.83), or believed HPV vaccine was effective for preventing cervical cancer (OR = 2.55; 95% CI, 1.93-3.37). Parents less often agreed if they resided in Midwest states or believed that HPV vaccine was being pushed to make money for drug companies (both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Opt-out provisions almost tripled parents' support for HPV vaccine school-entry requirements. Our findings suggest that race/ethnicity, attitudes about HPV vaccine, and region of residence may influence support for requirements without opt-out provisions.

IMPACT

Opt-out provisions greatly increase parent support of school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination but may make them ineffective. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(9); 1317-25. ©2016 AACR.

What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives

In light of current concern over pediatric immunization rates, 53 US parents with at least one child kindergarten age or younger were surveyed and interviewed regarding vaccine decision making. Data were collected in 2014 in San Diego, California. Herd immunity was not a salient issue: only six (11.3%) referenced the term or concept spontaneously; others had to be prompted. Parents familiar with herd immunity (70%) variously saw it as not just unnecessary but unproven, illogical, unrealistic, and unreliable. For instance, parents questioned its attainability because many adults do not immunize themselves. Some understood the concept negatively, as an instance of "herd mentality." Further, having knowledge of herd immunity that public health experts would deem 'correct' did not lead to full vaccination. Implications of findings for understanding how the public makes use of scientific information, the potential role of public health messaging regarding altruism and 'free-riding,' and assumptions that vaccine-cautious parents would willfully take advantage of herd immunity are explored in relation to parent role expectations and American individualism.