The Ethics of Vaccination Nudges in Pediatric Practice

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.

Nudging toward vaccination: a systematic review

Background

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) and the global decline of vaccine coverage are a major global health threat, and novel approaches for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake are urgently needed. ‘Nudging’, defined as altering the environmental context in which a decision is made or a certain behaviour is enacted, has shown promising results in several health promotion strategies. We present a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding the value and impact of nudges to address VH.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to determine if nudging can mitigate VH and improve vaccine uptake. Our search strategy used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms to identify articles related to nudging and vaccination in nine research databases. 15 177 titles were extracted and assessed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The final list of included articles was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

Findings

Identified interventions are presented according to a framework for behaviour change, MINDSPACE. Articles (n=48) from 10 primarily high-income countries were included in the review. Nudging-based interventions identified include using reminders and recall, changing the way information is framed and delivered to an intended audience, changing the messenger delivering information, invoking social norms and emotional affect (eg, through storytelling, dramatic narratives and graphical presentations), and offering incentives or changing defaults. The most promising evidence exists for nudges that offer incentives to parents and healthcare workers, that make information more salient or that use trusted messengers to deliver information. The effectiveness of nudging interventions and the direction of the effect varies substantially by context. Evidence for some approaches is mixed, highlighting a need for further research, including how successful interventions can be adapted across settings.

Conclusion

Nudging-based interventions show potential to increase vaccine confidence and uptake, but further evidence is needed for the development of clear recommendations. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic increases the urgency of undertaking nudging-focused research.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020185817.

Dilemmas of nudging in public health: an ethical analysis of a Danish pamphlet

Nudging has been discussed in the context of public health, and ethical issues raised by nudging in public health contexts have been highlighted. In this article, we first identify types of nudging approaches and techniques that have been used in screening programmes, and ethical issues that have been associated with nudging: paternalism, limited autonomy and manipulation. We then identify nudging techniques used in a pamphlet developed for the Danish National Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer. These include framing, default nudge, use of hassle bias, authority nudge and priming. The pamphlet and the very offering of a screening programme can in themselves be considered nudges. Whether nudging strategies are ethically problematic depend on whether they are categorized as educative- or non-educative nudges. Educative nudges seek to affect people's choice making by engaging their reflective capabilities. Non-educative nudges work by circumventing people's reflective capabilities. Information materials are, on the face of it, meant to engage citizens' reflective capacities. Recipients are likely to receive information materials with this expectation, and thus not expect to be affected in other ways. Non-educative nudges may therefore be particularly problematic in the context of information on screening, also as participating in screening does not always benefit the individual.

The moral perils of conditional cash transfer programmes and their significance for policy: a meta-ethnography of the ethical debate

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) is a compelling policy alternative for reducing poverty and improving health, and its effectiveness is promising. CCT programmes have been widely deployed across geographical, economic and political contexts, but not without contestation. Critics argue that CCTs may result in infringements on freedom and dignity, gender discrimination and disempowerment and power imbalances between programme providers and beneficiaries. In this analysis, we aim to identify the ethical concepts applicable to CCTs and to contextualize these by mapping the tensions of the debate, allowing us to understand the separate contributions as parts of a larger whole. We searched a range of databases for records on public health CCT. Strategies were last run in January 2017. We included 31 dialectical articles deliberating the ethics of CCTs and applied a meta-ethnographic approach. We identified 22 distinct ethical concepts. By analysing and mapping the tensions in the discourse, the following four strands of debate emerged: (1) responsibility for poverty and health: personal vs public duty, (2) power balance: autonomy vs paternalism, (3) social justice: empowerment vs oppression and (4) marketization of human behaviour and health: 'fair trade' vs moral corruption. The debate shed light on the ethical ideals, principles and doctrines underpinning CCT. These were consistent with a market-oriented liberal welfare regime ideal: privatization of public responsibilities; a selective rather than a universal approach; empowerment by individual entrepreneurship; marketization of health with a conception of human beings as utility maximizing creatures; and limited acknowledgement of the role of structural injustices in poverty and health. Identification of key tensions in the public health ethics debate may expose underpinning ideological logics of health and social programmes that may be at odds with public values and contemporary political priorities. Decisions about CCTs should therefore not be considered a technical exercise, but a context-dependent process requiring transparent, informed and deliberative decision-making.

Creating a Learning Televillage and Automated Digital Child Health Ecosystem

This article explores the impact of digital technologies, including telehealth, teleconsultations, wireless devices, and chatbots, in pediatrics. Automated digital health with the Internet of things will allow better collection of real-world data for generation of real-world evidence to improve child health. Artificial intelligence with predictive analytics in turn will drive evidence-based decision-support systems and deliver personalized care to children. This technology creates building blocks for a learning child health and health care ecosystem.

Nudging Immunity: The Case for Vaccinating Children in School and Day Care by Default

Many parents are hesitant about, or face motivational barriers to, vaccinating their children. In this paper, we propose a type of vaccination policy that could be implemented either in addition to coercive vaccination or as an alternative to it in order to increase paediatric vaccination uptake in a non-coercive way. We propose the use of vaccination nudges that exploit the very same decision biases that often undermine vaccination uptake. In particular, we propose a policy under which children would be vaccinated at school or day-care by default, without requiring parental authorization, but with parents retaining the right to opt their children out of vaccination. We show that such a policy is (1) likely to be effective, at least in cases in which non-vaccination is due to practical obstacles, rather than to strong beliefs about vaccines, (2) ethically acceptable and less controversial than some alternatives because it is not coercive and affects individual autonomy only in a morally unproblematic way, and (3) likely to receive support from the UK public, on the basis of original empirical research we have conducted on the lay public.

Nudge or Grudge? Choice Architecture and Parental Decision-Making

Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein define a nudge as "any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives." Much has been written about the ethics of nudging competent adult patients. Less has been written about the ethics of nudging surrogates' decision-making and how the ethical considerations and arguments in that context might differ. Even less has been written about nudging surrogate decision-making in the context of pediatrics, despite fundamental differences that exist between the pediatric and adult contexts. Yet, as the field of behavioral economics matures and its insights become more established and well-known, nudges will become more crafted, sophisticated, intentional, and targeted. Thus, the time is now for reflection and ethical analysis regarding the appropriateness of nudges in pediatrics. We argue that there is an even stronger ethical justification for nudging in parental decision-making than with competent adult patients deciding for themselves. We give three main reasons in support of this: (1) child patients do not have autonomy that can be violated (a concern with some nudges), and nudging need not violate parental decision-making authority; (2) nudging can help fulfill pediatric clinicians' obligations to ensure parental decisions are in the child's interests, particularly in contexts where there is high certainty that a recommended intervention is low risk and of high benefit; and (3) nudging can relieve parents' decisional burden regarding what is best for their child, particularly with decisions that have implications for public health.

Vaccination Timeliness at Age 24 Months in Michigan Children Born 2006-2010

INTRODUCTION

Delays in vaccination can stymie the development of herd immunity, and a large proportion of children in the U.S. are known not to receive vaccines on time. This study quantifies delays in vaccination, compares vaccination timeliness to the proportion of children vaccinated, and evaluates the impact of combination vaccine use and timely administration of hepatitis B vaccine birth dose on vaccine timeliness among Michigan children.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Michigan Care Improvement Registry-the state immunization information system-for children born 2006-2010. Children aged 24 months as of December 31, 2012, were included. The proportion of children with timely administration of vaccine doses was calculated, and the mean days of vaccination delay with SD were reported.

RESULTS

Among 620,592 Michigan children, 42.2% had received all vaccines, but only 13.2% were vaccinated on time by age 24 months. Children's vaccinations were delayed an average of 59.2 (SD=91.2) days by age 24 months for all recommended vaccine doses. Children who received a timely hepatitis B vaccine birth dose or who received a combination vaccine had less delay in vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Michigan children have high vaccination coverage based on standard measures but few receive these vaccines on time. Promoting use of combination vaccines may improve parental compliance with timely vaccination of children.