The evolution of immunization waiver education in Michigan: A qualitative study of vaccine educators

School staff as vaccine advocates: Perspectives on vaccine mandates and the student registration process

Recently, several states in the US have made it more difficult to receive nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates in the hope of better orienting parents towards vaccination. However, little is known about how public-facing school staff implement and enforce mandate policies, including why or how often they steer parents towards nonmedical exemptions. This study focused on Michigan, which has recently added an additional burden for families seeking nonmedical exemptions. We used an anonymous online survey to assess Michigan public-school employees (n = 157) about their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Michigan's school enrollment vaccine mandate policy. Our main conclusions are that frontline school staff are generally knowledgeable about vaccines and immunization policy, but are at best ambivalent about their role in immunization governance, believing that other agents should be responsible for ensuring that children are vaccinated. Furthermore, some respondents indicated low vaccine confidence, which was associated with increased ambivalence about, or opposition to, their role in immunization governance. As more jurisdictions within and beyond the US consider introducing or tightening childhood vaccine mandates, it is increasingly important to understand how these policies can be improved by attending to the attitudes and roles of relevant frontline actors.

School staff and immunization governance: Missed opportunities for public health promotion

BACKGROUND

In US states, childhood immunization mandates are enforced for school registration by front-line school staff, usually secretaries. Despite substantial changes to mandate policies in several states and many countries, little attention has been paid to the people who enforce them. This qualitative pilot study aimed to uncover beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarding immunization governance of Michigan school staff.

METHOD

Front-line administrative workers from Michigan schools and district offices were solicited by email. Sixteen were interviewed remotely.

RESULTS

Front-line school staff believed in vaccines, but did not advocate for vaccination while registering children. Instead, they sought low-friction bureaucratic transactions, privileging the collection of data over the promotion of public health goals. This revealed a mismatch between the goals of the front-line staff who enforce vaccine mandates in schools and the goals of the policymakers who created school vaccine mandates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found low mobilization of front-line enforcers of mandates in public-facing school administration roles, a problem likely to afflict the majority of American states with the 'mandates + exemptions' model of immunization governance. Schools would have stronger incentives to promote vaccination if state funding were better tied to immunization compliance. Front-line staff could better enforce vaccine mandates if they were provided with resources and training about vaccine promotion.

Consolidating a research agenda for vaccine mandates

A workshop on mandatory vaccination was pitched to the World Public Health Congress in 2019 and the resultant special issue was pitched to Vaccine in 2020. During this project, the COVID-19 pandemic pushed vaccine policy to the forefront of global public health policy, and the imposition of vaccine mandates prompted a new wave of scholarship in the field. This introductory article employs the heuristic of Lasswell's (1956) policy cycle to synthesise the findings of the articles in the special issue. It considers the temporal lifetime of mandates and highlights findings regarding: the emergence of mandates as a policy option, public support and policy instrument design, what matters in the implementation of mandates, and what we can learn from evaluating them. The second half of the paper categorizes the included papers in terms of what aspects of mandates they study and the methods they employ to do so, in order to formulate a guide for future researchers of vaccine mandates. Scholars study either speculative or existing mandates - research can address several stages of the policy cycle or just one of them, ranging from attitudinal research to implementation studies and impact studies. Historical and contextual studies that take deep dives into a particular mandate are a much needed resource for studying emerging mandates, too, and scoping and framework- building work will undoubtedly be valuable in understanding and appreciating the wealth of knowledge production in this growing field. This special issue can serve as a roadmap for a consolidation of this interdisciplinary research agenda, and provide a helpful resource for decisionmakers at this historical juncture.

Beliefs and Sociodemographic and Occupational Factors Associated with Vaccine Hesitancy among Health Workers

Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy has been implicated in the low-vaccination coverage in several countries. Knowledge about vaccine hesitancy predictors in health workers is essential because they play a central role in communication about the importance and safety of vaccines. This study aimed to assess beliefs and sociodemographic and occupational factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in health workers. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study among 453 health workers in primary and medium complexity services in a municipality in the state of Bahia, Brazil. The variable vaccine hesitancy was operationalized based on the answers related to incomplete vaccination against hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella, and diphtheria and tetanus. Associations between variables were expressed as prevalence ratios (PR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Endemic disease combat agents, administrative service workers, and support staff had the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy. Among the analyzed variables, the following were associated with vaccine hesitancy: working in secondary health care services (PR: 1.21; CI: 1.07-1.36), working as an endemic disease combat agent (PR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.165-1.75), not sharing information about vaccines on social media (PR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05-1.28), distrusting information about vaccinations (PR: 0.86; CI: 0.75-0.99), and not feeling safe receiving new vaccines (PR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.28). Conclusions: Strategies to enhance confidence in vaccination among health workers should consider differences in occupations and their working settings. Improving vaccination-related content in training and continuing education activities and facilitating access to onsite vaccinations at the workplace are crucial elements to reduce vaccine hesitancy among health workers.

Methods of Current Practice: Qualitative Analysis of Intervention Strategies Utilized by Vaccine Waiver Educators in Michigan

By enacting administrative rule 325.176 (12), Michigan added a vaccine education component as a precondition to granting vaccine waivers to vaccine-hesitant parents wishing to file a nonmedical vaccine exemption for their school-aged child. The purpose of the study was to identify best practices for reaching vaccine-hesitant parents during face-to-face vaccine education sessions conducted by vaccine waiver educators in Michigan. This study utilized qualitative descriptive content analysis of semi-structured phone interviews with vaccine waiver educators from local health departments (LHDs) in Michigan. Participants were vaccine waiver educators who were employed by a local health department in Michigan and had conducted at least 30 vaccine waiver education sessions. Strategies, resources, and techniques identified by educators as beneficial included using and providing information from a variety of sources, compiling their own educational materials, creating a positive experience, holding personalized sessions, and streamlining exemption and vaccination sessions. However, unexpected themes that emerged from the interviews revealed that vaccine waiver educators need additional training in discussing vaccine ingredients with parents, handling religious vaccine exemption requests, and assessing the role of schools. Implementing successful vaccine education interventions targeting vaccine-hesitancy is crucial to public health. Charging LHDs with overseeing vaccine education via a face-to-face discussion is a novel intervention strategy, the effective implementation of which may inform vaccine education intervention nationwide and may even be translated into international contexts and prove useful to current COVID-19 vaccination efforts.

Evaluating Michigan's Administrative Rule Change on Nonmedical Vaccine Exemptions

OBJECTIVES

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to health in the United States. Facing the fourth highest vaccine exemption rate in the United States in 2014, Michigan changed its state Administrative Rules, effective January 1, 2015, requiring parents to attend an in-person vaccine education session at their local health department before obtaining a nonmedical exemption (NME). In this article, we evaluate the longer-term impact of this policy change on the rate, spatial distribution, and sociodemographic predictors of NMEs in Michigan.

METHODS

Using school-level kindergarten vaccination data from Michigan from 2011 to 2018, we evaluated sociodemographic predictors of NMEs before and after this Administrative Rule change using Bayesian binomial regression. We measured the persistence and location of school district-level geographic clustering using local indicators of spatial association.

RESULTS

Immediately after the rule change, rates of NMEs fell by 32%. However, NME rates rebounded in subsequent years, increasing by 26% by 2018, although income disparities in NME rates decreased after the rule change. Philosophical, religious, and medical vaccine exemptions exhibited distinct geographic patterns across the state, which largely persisted after 2015, illustrating that NME clusters remain a concern despite this rule change.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Michigan's Administrative Rule change caused a short-term decline in NME rates, NME rates have risen dramatically in the following 4 years since the policy was implemented. Michigan's administrative effort to require parental education at the local health department before receiving an exemption did not cause a sustained reduction in the rate or spatial distribution of NMEs.

Measuring Multiple Dimensions and Indices of Nonvaccination Clustering in Michigan, 2008-2018

Michigan experienced a significant measles outbreak in 2019 amidst rising rates of nonmedical vaccine exemptions (NMEs) and low vaccination coverage compared with the rest of the United States. There is a critical need to better understand the landscape of nonvaccination in Michigan to assess the risk of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in the state, yet there is no agreed-upon best practice for characterizing spatial clustering of nonvaccination, and numerous clustering metrics are available in the statistical, geographical, and epidemiologic literature. We used school-level data to characterize the spatiotemporal landscape of vaccine exemptions in Michigan for the period 2008-2018 using Moran's I, the isolation index, the modified aggregation index, and the Theil index at 4 spatial scales. We also used nonvaccination thresholds of 5%, 10%, and 20% to assess the bias incurred when aggregating vaccination data. We found that aggregating school-level data to levels commonly used for public reporting can lead to large biases in identifying the number and location of at-risk students and that different clustering metrics yielded variable interpretations of the nonvaccination landscape in Michigan. This study shows the importance of choosing clustering metrics with their mechanistic interpretations in mind, be it large- or fine-scale heterogeneity or between- and within-group contributions to spatial variation.

Normalizing inconvenience to promote childhood vaccination: a qualitative implementation evaluation of a novel Michigan program

Background

In 2015, Michigan implemented a rule requiring parents to attend an education session at a local health department (LHD) prior to waiving mandatory child vaccinations. This study utilizes Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to assess program implementation, identifying potential threats to fidelity and sustainability.

Methods

We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in these education programs across 16 LHDs. Participating LHDs were selected from a stratified, representative sample. One interviewer conducted all interviews using a semi-structured interview guide; two authors coded and analyzed the interview transcripts according to the NPT framework (i.e, sense-making, engagement, collective action, and reflexive monitoring).

Results

There was a lack of consensus about who the stakeholders of this new rule and its resulting program were (sense-making). Perhaps as a result, most LHDs did not solicit advice from key stakeholder groups (i.e., schools, health care providers, community stakeholders) in their planning (engagement). While most interviewees identified providing education and information as the goal, some identified the more challenging goal of persuading vaccine hesitant parents to immunize their children. There was also some variation in perception of who held health educators accountable for meeting the goals of the waiver education program (collective action). Formal program evaluation by LHDs was rare, although some held informal staff debriefings. Additionally, sessions that went particularly well or poorly were top-of-mind (reflexive monitoring).

Conclusions

The immunization waiver education program may be at risk of not becoming fully embedded into routine LHD practice, potentially compromising its long-term effectiveness and sustainability. Managers at the local and state level should maintain oversight to ensure that the program is delivered with fidelity. As the program relies on sustaining inconvenience to encourage parents to immunize their children, any shortcuts taken will undermine its success.

Vaccine confidence: the keys to restoring trust

During the 20^th century, the discovery of modern vaccines and ensuing mass vaccination dramatically decreased the incidence of many infectious diseases and in some cases eliminated them. Despite this, we are now witnessing a decrease in vaccine confidence that threatens to reverse the progress made. Considering the different extents of low vaccine confidence in different countries of the world, both developed and developing, we aim to contribute to the discussion of the reasons for this, and to propose some viable scientific solutions to build or help restore vaccine confidence worldwide.

Getting Personal: How Childhood Vaccination Policies Shape the Landscape of Vaccine Exemptions

Background

State-mandated school entry immunization requirements in the United States play an important role in achieving high vaccine coverage, but variations in vaccine exemption policies result in a patchwork of vaccine coverage across the country.

Methods

In this study, we evaluate epidemiological effects and spatial variations in nonmedical exemption (NME) rates in the context of vaccine policies. We first analyze the correlation between NME rates and vaccine coverage for 3 significant childhood vaccinations. Furthermore, we assess the effects of policy changes in a subset of states, using a correlative approach at the state level and performing a clustering analysis at the county level.

Results

We find that higher rates of exemptions are associated with lower vaccination rates of school-aged children in all cases. In a subset of states where exemption policy has recently changed, we show that the effects on statewide NME rates vary widely and that decreases in NMEs can lead to an increase in other types of exemptions. Finally, our clustering analysis in California, Illinois, and Connecticut shows that policy changes affect the spatial distribution of NMEs.

Conclusions

Our work suggests that vaccination policies have significant impacts on patterns of herd immunity. Our findings can be used to develop evidence-based vaccine legislation.

Efficient burdens decrease nonmedical exemption rates: A cross-county comparison of Michigan's vaccination waiver education efforts

Michigan’s introduction of mandatory counseling for nonmedical exemptions was associated with decreased nonmedical exemption rates. However, while each of Michigan’s 45 local health departments made its own decisions about how to conduct immunization counseling, differences in the burdensomeness of counseling programs was not associated with greater or lesser changes in exemption rates. Data from a survey of Michigan local health departments (online, October 2015), epidemiological data from Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services (online, various dates), and social and economic data from the American Community Survey (online, various dates) were used in models explaining change in county-level nonmedical exemption rates. Counties that first required an education session after the December 2014 rule change had a 30% greater reduction in their nonmedical exemption rates for 2015 than did counties that already required education sessions. Michigan’s experience with vaccination waiver education suggests that imposing burdens on nonmedical waiver applicants decreases nonmedical waiver rates. It also indicates there may be a burden threshold beyond which incremental increases in inconvenience do not further reduce exemption rates. Thus, in a context of hyper-politicization and austerity, health departments may be wise to avoid implementing additionally burdensome processes that are politically or economically expensive to administer.

NAVIN MARK. Childhood Vaccination Mandates: Scope, Sanctions, Severity, Selectivity, and Salience

Policy Points We offer the first systematic conceptual framework for analyzing the operation of mandatory vaccination policies. Our multicomponent framework facilitates synthesis judgments on single issues of pressing concern to policymakers, in particular, how mandatory vaccination policies motivate people to vaccinate. We consider the impact of each component of our framework on persons who remain unvaccinated for different reasons, including complacency, social disadvantage, and more or less committed forms of refusal.

CONTEXT

In response to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as "vaccine mandates." However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context-specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations.

METHODS

In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real-world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope (which vaccines to require), sanctions and severity (which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity (how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates).

FINDINGS

A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute-salience-which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.

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.

Vaccine Education, Reasons for Refusal, and Vaccination Behavior

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about associations between the reasons parents refuse or delay vaccines for their children, their responsiveness to vaccine counseling, and their children's vaccination status at various ages. Since 2015, Michigan has required parents to attend education sessions at local health departments to receive nonmedical exemptions. This requirement provides an opportunity to study otherwise opaque aspects of vaccine refusal.

METHODS

In 2017 and 2018, researchers analyzed a combined data set that included electronic medical records (n=4,098) generated by one Michigan health department during 2015 immunization education sessions, and immunization records from an August 2016 report of the Michigan Care Improvement Registry immunization registry. Analyses employed difference of proportions and ANOVAs to explore group differences in vaccination behaviors after education sessions and on-time vaccination status at various ages.

RESULTS

Children whose parents stated a commitment to an alternative schedule at the education session subsequently received a vaccine their parents had refused at a much higher rate (39.2%) than did children whose parents refused for reasons of religion (4.4%), concerns about the risks of vaccines (8.1%), or beliefs that vaccines provide little benefit (10.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Different reasons for refusal are associated with different patterns of vaccination behavior. Furthermore, results suggest that education sessions may overcome vaccine refusal in some cases, and that distinct refusal reasons mark real differences in parental motivations regarding vaccination choices. These differences in parental motivations may indicate the existence of different sites for potential pro-vaccination interventions.

Current landscape of nonmedical vaccination exemptions in the United States: impact of policy changes

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, high childhood vaccination coverage has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to vaccine-preventable diseases. The success of vaccination programs in achieving this high coverage is due, in part, to vaccination mandates for school entry. All states have such mandates, but there is heterogeneity across the states in the allowance of non-medical exemptions (e.g. religious or personal belief exemptions) to these mandates.

AREAS COVERED

We examine historical trends in non-medical exemption prevalence in the US, discuss recent state-level policy changes that may impact non-medical exemption prevalence, and review recent studies on the association between non-medical exemptions and infectious disease outbreaks.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

State-level implementation of mandates, and related allowances for medical and non-medical exemptions, varies greatly across the United States. Non-medical exemption rates have increased over the last two decades, with an increased risk of disease outbreaks in clusters of children with non-medical exemptions due to differences in state laws. Recent efforts to address non-medical exemption rates range from incorporating additional administrative requirements for exemptions and disallowance of any non-medical exemptions. Continued monitoring is needed to evaluate the impact of these changes on exemption rates, to develop optimal childhood vaccination policy across the United States.