Common perceptions of parents requesting personal exemption from vaccination

Why do parents refuse childhood vaccination? Reasons reported in Finland

AIMS

This article examines the reasons for partial and complete refusal of childhood vaccination as reported by parents in Finland. It analyzes perceptions and experiences central in vaccination decisions.

METHODS

The analysis is based on 38 in-depth interviews with Finnish parents who have refused all or several vaccines for their children. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Three categories of reasons were identified in the analysis: 1) risks and effects of vaccination - concern about and/or experiences of possible side-effects was the most important reason for avoiding vaccines; 2) distrust - participants did not trust vaccination recommendations made by health officials and medical professionals due to perceived bias in medical research, ties between health officials and the pharmaceutical industry, and personal experiences of (suspected) adverse effects and the way these concerns were received in healthcare institutions; 3) health perceptions and practices - parents supported their vaccination choices with complementary and alternative medicine treatments and alternative health understandings. Many stated that contracting vaccine-preventable illnesses would provide longer lasting and more 'natural' immunity than vaccination, and possibly other health benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

A loss of trust in medical and public health actors was central to the process in which parents came to question, contest, and eventually refuse childhood vaccination. The adverse effects of the Pandemrix vaccine in 2009-2010 have been important in leading to distrust and contestation. Distrust may relate to personal experiences of (suspected) adverse effects or to broader concerns over the neutrality of health authorities and the trustworthiness of medical research.

In the Wake of a Pandemic: Revisiting School Approaches to Nonmedical Exemptions to Mandatory Vaccination in the US

Mandatory school vaccination policies with exclusion of unvaccinated students can be a powerful tool in ensuring high vaccination rates. Some parents may object to mandatory vaccination policies, claiming exemptions based on medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Individual schools, school systems, or local or regional governments have different policies with respect to whether, and what kind of, exemptions may be allowed. In the setting of the current pandemic, questions regarding the acceptability of exemptions have resurfaced, as schools and local governments struggle with how to safely return children to school. Anticipating that school attendance will be facilitated by the development of a vaccine, school systems will face decisions about whether to mandate vaccination and whether to permit exemptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics promulgates policy favoring the elimination of nonmedical exemptions generally in schools. This discussion considers whether schools should eliminate nonmedical exemptions to vaccination as proposed in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy, ultimately concluding that broad elimination of exemptions is not justified and advocating a more nuanced approach that encourages school attendance while promoting vaccination and broader public health goals.

Kansas Family Physicians Perceptions of Parental Vaccination Hesitancy

Introduction

In the past few decades, patients expressing the idea that vaccines are unsafe or unneeded have been experienced increasingly by physicians and other healthcare providers. Discussions with patients regarding their reasons for vaccine refusals are important, as it may provide information that can be utilized in an intervention to increase vaccination rates and combat the spread of diseases that are making a resurgence in the United States. The main objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of family physicians as to why parents in Kansas may be vaccine hesitant.

Methods

An electronic survey was distributed to family physicians in the State of Kansas via the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita Family Medicine Research and Data Information Office (FM RADIO). Several aspects of physician perceptions regarding patients’ vaccine hesitancy were measured in this study, including vaccines that are most often refused, reasons for refusing vaccinations, as well as what responses physicians employ when presented with vaccine concerns.

Results

The majority of physicians surveyed have experienced vaccine hesitancy or refusal in their practice, and the human papillomavirus (HPV) and flu vaccines were reported to be the primary vaccines refused for children. In addition, physicians reported frequently employing various practices in response to vaccine refusals, including requiring parents to sign a form (40%) and dismissing families from their practice (1.5%). Physician perceptions on the reasons as to why parents/guardians refuse vaccinations also were measured, and the most common response was that parents possess a fear of long-term complications for their children as a result of vaccines (74%). Additionally, the three most commonly refused vaccines were HPV, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella.

Conclusion

Physicians must not only deal with time constraints that vaccine hesitant discussions require, but also must try and implement discussions or interventions suited to the varying reasons why parents/guardians refuse vaccines to convince parents of their safety. The results suggested that vaccine refusals by parents/guardians seemed to be affecting Kansas family physicians’ clinics in more than one way. This study could be a useful tool to help physicians better understand why vaccine refusals occur and be able to combat unwarranted concerns about vaccines.

Resources for assessing parents' vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of the literature

The concept of Vaccine Hesitancy has begun to appear in the scientific landscape, referring to the reluctance of a growing proportion of people to accept the vaccination offer. A variety of factors were identified as being associated with vaccine hesitancy but there was no universal algorithm and currently there aren’t any established metrics to assess either the presence or impact of vaccine hesitancy. The aim of this study was to systematically review the published questionnaires evaluating parental vaccine hesitancy, to highlight the differences among these surveys and offer a general overview on this matter. This study offers a deeper perspective on the available questionnaires, helping future researches to identify the most suitable one according to their own aim and study setting.

A systematic review of studies that measure parental vaccine attitudes and beliefs in childhood vaccination

Background

Acceptance of vaccines is an important predictor of vaccine uptake. This has public health implications as those who are not vaccinated are at a higher risk of infection from vaccine preventable diseases. We aimed to examine how parental attitudes and beliefs towards childhood vaccination were measured in questionnaires through a systematic review of the literature.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature to identify primary research studies using tools to measure vaccine attitudes and beliefs, published between January 2012 and May 2018. Studies were included if they involved a quantitative survey of the attitudes and beliefs of parents about vaccinations recommended for children. We undertook a synthesis of the results with a focus on evaluating the tools used to measure hesitancy.

Results

A total of 116 studies met the inclusion criteria, 99 used a cross sectional study design, 5 used a case control study design, 4 used a pre-post study design and 8 used mixed methods study designs. Sample sizes of included studies ranged from 49 to 12,259. The most commonly used tool was the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Survey (n = 7). The most common theoretical framework used was the Health Belief Model (n = 25). Questions eliciting vaccination attitudes and beliefs varied widely.

Conclusions

There was heterogeneity in the types of questionnaires used in studies investigating attitudes and beliefs about vaccination in parents. Methods to measure parental attitudes and beliefs about vaccination could be improved with validated and standardised yet flexible instruments. The use of a standard set of questions should be encouraged in this area of study.

Mandatory vaccination: a joint statement of the Ethics and Vaccination working groups of the European Academy of Paediatrics

Vaccinating children is amongst the most cost-effective interventions for reducing children's morbidity and mortality. Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children despite having been informed about the evidence on safety and efficacy of vaccines may seriously jeopardise the health of both their own children and others. Contemporary ethical thinking about the limits of parental decision-making over their children's healthcare treatment often considers the zone of parental discretion. However, with vaccination this is slightly less direct as the benefits are not only accumulated by an individual child but also by children as a population. Forcing parents is of course not the only solution to counteracting the fear of vaccines. Health authorities should certainly fund research and deploy resources on combatting vaccine disinformation.Conclusion: It would be preferable to achieve high rates of vaccination coverage by educating both parents and physicians without adopting any legislation for mandatory vaccination. However, in countries where vaccination uptake is low and/or outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases occur, the implementation of mandatory vaccination will most probably save children's lives. EAP calls for action to make all scheduled childhood vaccinations a matter of fact for all European children.

Beliefs around childhood vaccines in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

While childhood vaccines are safe and effective, some parents remain hesitant to vaccinate their children, which has led to outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. The goal of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the range of beliefs around childhood vaccines elicited using open-ended questions, which are better suited for discovering beliefs compared to closed-ended questions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched using keywords for childhood vaccines, decision makers, beliefs, and attitudes to identify studies that collected primary data using a variety of open-ended questions regarding routine childhood vaccine beliefs in the United States. Study designs, population characteristics, vaccine types, and vaccine beliefs were abstracted. We conducted a qualitative analysis to conceptualize beliefs into themes and generated descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1727 studies identified, 71 were included, focusing largely on parents (including in general, and those who were vaccine hesitant or at risk of hesitancy). Seven themes emerged: Adverse effects was most prominent, followed by mistrust, perceived lack of necessity, pro-vaccine opinions, skepticism about effectiveness, desire for autonomy, and morality concerns. The most commonly described beliefs included that vaccines can cause illnesses; a child's immune system can be overwhelmed if receiving too many vaccines at once; vaccines contain harmful ingredients; younger children are more susceptible to vaccine adverse events; the purpose of vaccines is profit-making; and naturally developed immunity is better than that acquired from vaccines. Nearly a third of the studies exclusively assessed minority populations, and more than half of the studies examined beliefs only regarding HPV vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies used open-ended questions to elicit beliefs about vaccines. Many of the studies that did so, focused on HPV vaccine. Concerns about vaccine safety were the most commonly stated beliefs about childhood vaccines, likely because studies were designed to capture barriers and challenges to vaccination.

Maternal perceptions of childhood vaccination: explanations of reasons for and against vaccination

BACKGROUND

Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is critical for designing vaccination campaigns and informing other interventions to increase vaccination uptake in Canada. The objective of this study was to understand maternal vaccination decision making for children.

METHODS

Mothers participating in a longitudinal community-based pregnancy cohort, the All Our Babies study in Calgary, Alberta, completed open-ended survey questions providing explanations for the vaccination status of their child by 24 months postpartum. Qualitative responses were linked to administrative vaccination records to examine survey responses and recorded child vaccination status.

RESULTS

There were 1560 open-ended responses available; 89% (n = 1391) provided explanations for vaccinating their children, 5% (n = 79) provided explanations for not vaccinating/delaying, and 6% (n = 90) provided explanations for both. Themes were similar for those vaccinating and not vaccinating/delaying; however, interpretations were different. Two broad themes were identified: Sources of influence and Deliberative Processes. Sources of influence on decision making included personal, family, and external experiences. Deliberative Processes included risk, research, effectiveness, and balancing risks/benefits. Under Deliberative Processes, responsibility was a category for those vaccinating; while choice, instrumental/practical, and health issues were categories for those not vaccinating/delaying. Mothers' levels of conviction and motivation provided a Context for understanding their decision making perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination decision making is complex and impacted by many factors that are similar but contribute to different decisions depending on mothers' perspectives. The results of this study indicate the need to examine new intervention approaches to increase uptake that recognize and address feelings of pressure and parental commitment to choice.

Exploring California's new law eliminating personal belief exemptions to childhood vaccines and vaccine decision-making among homeschooling mothers in California

BACKGROUND

California's Senate Bill 277 (SB-277) law eliminated the personal belief exemption to school immunization requirements. A potential consequence may be that parents choose homeschooling to avoid immunization. Vaccine attitudes and behaviors have not been well studied among the home-schooling population. This study explored the effect of SB-277 and vaccine decision-making among California home schoolers.

METHODS

Purposive and snowball sampling were used recruit home-schooling parents through home-schooling Facebook groups based on home school type in high-exemption regions in California for in-depth interviews. Participants had to have a child in a legalized form of homeschooling in California in grades kindergarten-twelfth grade.

RESULTS

Twenty-four mothers were interviewed. Participants were categorized based on self-reported vaccine attitudes and behavior into three groups: Confident and Accepting, Hesitant and Accepting, and Skeptical and Refusing. All reported the belief that SB-277 is an infringement on parental rights but was not currently impacting them. Confident and Accepting mothers (n = 10) generally believed vaccinations were safe, effective, and posed a lower risk than vaccine preventable disease (VPD). Hesitant and Accepting mothers (n = 5) expressed varying confidence levels in the belief that vaccinations were safe and effective, were not confident in the belief that vaccination posed lower risks than VPD risk, and risk perception affected vaccine decision-making. Skeptical and Refusing mothers (n = 9) generally believed that vaccinations were unsafe and ineffective, refused select vaccines, believed that vaccination posed a more serious risk than VPD risks, and belief of vaccine harm was a salient factor in vaccine decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Home-schooling mothers were concerned about SB-277 but did not report that it was directly impacting their children, their vaccine decisions, or reason to home school. Vaccine attitudes and beliefs among homeschooling mothers broadly fell into categories similar to parents of non-home-schooled children. Future quantitative studies should measure vaccine hesitancy and refusal prevalence and potential confounders.

Belief About Mandatory School Vaccinations and Vaccination Refusal Among Ohio Appalachian Parents: Do Demographic and Religious Factors, General Health, and Political Affiliation Play a Role?

PURPOSE

To examine how demographic, general health, religious, and political characteristics influenced beliefs about mandatory school vaccinations and history of vaccination refusal for children among Ohio Appalachian parents.

METHODS

In 2013 and 2014, baseline data were obtained from parents (n = 337) of girls aged 9-17 from 12 counties in rural Ohio Appalachia enrolled in the Community Awareness, Resources and Education (CARE II) Project. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify correlates of parental beliefs about mandatory school vaccinations and history of refusing a doctor-recommended vaccine for their child(ren).

RESULTS

About 47% of parents agreed that parents should have the right to refuse mandatory school vaccinations for their child(ren). Participants who reported their political affiliation as Republican (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.28-4.66) or Independent (OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.70-6.44) were more likely to agree that parents should have the right to refuse school-mandated vaccinations than parents who reported their political affiliation as Democrat. Approximately 39% of parents reported ever refusing a vaccine for their child(ren). Participants who were female (OR = 3.90, 95% CI: 1.04-14.58) and believed that parents should have the right to refuse mandatory school vaccinations (OR = 3.27, 95% CI: 1.90-5.62) were more likely to report ever refusing a vaccine for their child(ren).

CONCLUSION

The study findings provide information to better understand factors related to vaccination refusal among parents in Appalachia Ohio that can be used to design interventions to improve vaccination uptake.

Increasing Immunization Compliance by Reducing Provisional Admittance

Students in Vermont with incomplete or undocumented immunization status are provisionally admitted to schools and historically had a calendar year to resolve their immunization status. The process of resolving these students’ immunization status was challenging for school nurses. We conducted a school-based quality improvement effort to increase student compliance with Vermont immunization regulations using a collaborative learning approach with public health school liaisons and school nurses from public schools to reduce provisional admittance in 2011–2012. Strategies included using a tracking system, accessing the immunization registry, promoting immunization importance, tracking immunization plans, and working with medical homes to update records. Participating school nurses observed decreases in the number of provisionally admitted students, although this reduction was not significantly different than matched comparison schools. We also found the number of provisionally admitted students fluctuated throughout the year and resolving the immunization status of New Americans and exchange students required special attention. Our approach supports the coordinated school health model and demonstrates the critical role school nurses play in improving population health outcomes.

Pediatric Care Provider Density and Personal Belief Exemptions From Vaccine Requirements in California Kindergartens

OBJECTIVES

To understand contextual associations between medical care providers-pediatricians, family medical practitioners, and alternative medicine practitioners-and personal belief exemptions (PBEs) from mandated school entry vaccinations.

METHODS

Data on kindergarten PBEs from the California Department of Public Health were analyzed for 2010, 2011, and 2012, with each school sorted into Primary Care Service Areas (PCSAs). Provider data from federal sources and state records of alternative medicine providers, alongside controls for school factors, were used to estimate panel models.

RESULTS

Each 10% increase in the relative proportion of pediatricians in a given PCSA was associated with a statistically significant 11% decrease in PBE prevalence. The same increase in the proportion of family medical practitioners was associated with a 3.5% relative increase. Access to alternative medicine practitioners was also associated with a significantly higher PBE prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical provider contexts are associated with PBEs, reflecting a combination of contextual effects and self-selection of families into schools and PCSAs that share their preferences. The geographic distribution of child primary care services may be a key factor in a school's health risk associated with lack of immunization or underimmunization.

Evaluation of Vaccination Policies Among Utah Pediatric Clinic Employees

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric health care settings are high-risk environments for spreading communicable and vaccine-preventable diseases from health care workers to susceptible patients.

METHOD

All managers of pediatric clinics operating in the state of Utah were included. Participants were invited to complete a two-page questionnaire regarding their clinic vaccination policies.

RESULTS

Half (n = 23) of Utah pediatric outpatient clinic managers recommend employee vaccinations, although employee refusal was allowed without consequence. Of all adult vaccines, influenza was most often included by managers as part of the employee vaccination policy. Some managers required unvaccinated employees to wear masks in the event of illness, but many had no additional requirements for unvaccinated and ill employees.

DISCUSSION

Vaccination of health care workers is an effective approach to reduce disease transmission. Mandatory vaccination policies can significantly improve vaccination rates among health care workers.

Addressing Parental Vaccination Questions in the School Setting: An Integrative Literature Review

School nurses work in a unique environment with key opportunities to address parental concerns and questions regarding their child's health. A common concern for parents during school enrollment is childhood vaccination safety and efficacy. As public health leaders, school nurses are well respected among parents, therefore school nurses are in a prime position to educate parents and promote childhood vaccinations while also dispelling common vaccination myths. The purpose of this integrative literature review is to synthesize evidence-based answers to common parental questions regarding childhood vaccinations.

Vaccination uptake by vaccine-hesitant parents attending a specialist immunization clinic in Australia

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is an issue of global concern. The quality of communication between healthcare providers and parents can influence parental immunization acceptance. We aimed to describe immunization uptake following specialist immunization clinic (SIC) consultation for Australian children of VH parents as a cohort, and according to pre-clinic parental position on immunization. At a single tertiary pediatric SIC (RCH, Melbourne) a retrospective descriptive study classified VH families according to 3 proposed parental positions on immunization at initial clinic attendance. Immunization status at follow up was ascertained via the Australian Children's Immunization Register and National HPV Program Register and compared between groups. Of the VH cohort, 13/38 (34%) families were classified as hesitant, 21 (55%) as late/selective vaccinators and 4 (11%) as vaccine refusers. Mean follow up post-SIC attendance was 14.5 months. For the overall VH cohort, the majority chose selective immunization (42%) following SIC consultation. When analyzed by pre-clinic parental position on immunization, there was a trend for hesitant families to proceed with full immunization, selective families to continue selective immunization and refusing families to remain unimmunised (p < 0.0001). The most commonly omitted vaccines were hepatitis B (66%) and Haemophilus influenzae type B (55%), followed by the meningococcal C conjugate vaccine (53%) and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (53%). Immunization outcome appears to correlate with pre-clinic parental position on immunization for the majority of families attending a SIC in Australia, with selective immunization the most common outcome. Tailored communication approaches based on parental position on immunization may optimise clinic resources and engagement of families, but require prospective research evaluation.

What are the factors that contribute to parental vaccine-hesitancy and what can we do about it?

Parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccines is increasing. Barriers to vaccination among this population have been described, yet less is known regarding motivating factors. Researchers are beginning to evaluate various approaches to address the concerns of "vaccine-hesitant" parents, but few studies have evaluated the effect of interventions on timely vaccine uptake. Several models for communicating with vaccine-hesitant parents have been reported for healthcare providers; however, the effectiveness and utility of these strategies has not been quantified. This article reviews the known barriers to vaccination reported by vaccine-hesitant parents and the current evidence on strategies to address parental vaccine hesitancy.

Nonmedical exemptions from school immunization requirements: a systematic review

We summarized studies describing the prevalence of, trends in, and correlates of nonmedical exemptions from school vaccination mandates and the association of these policies with the incidence of vaccine-preventable disease. We searched 4 electronic databases for empirical studies published from 1997 to 2013 to capture exemption dynamics and qualitatively abstracted and synthesized the results. Findings from 42 studies suggest that exemption rates are increasing and occur in clusters; most exemptors questioned vaccine safety, although some exempted out of convenience. Easier state-level exemption procedures increase exemption rates and both individual and community disease risk. State laws influence exemption rates, but policy implementation, exemptors' vaccination status, and underlying mechanisms of geographical clustering need to be examined further to tailor specific interventions.

Perceptions of personal belief vaccine exemption policy: a survey of Arizona vaccine providers

BACKGROUND

As exemptions to school-entry requirements rise, vaccination rates in Arizona school children are approaching levels that may threaten public health. Understanding the interactions physicians have with vaccine-hesitant parents, as well as the opinions physicians hold regarding vaccination, exemption, and exemption policies, are critical to our understanding of, and ability to affect, vaccination exemption rates among children.

METHODS

Survey responses were elicited from practitioners listed in The Arizona Partnership for Immunization and the Arizona Medical Association databases using a multi-pronged recruitment approach. Respondents provided data regarding their practice, comfort with parental refusal of individual vaccines, opinions about the beliefs held by parents that seek exemptions, parent education strategies, issues regarding providing care to unvaccinated children, and potential changes to Arizona policy.

RESULTS

A total of 152 practitioners providing care to a wide geographic and economic population of Arizona responded to the survey. Respondents were generally strong advocates of all immunizations but were more accepting of parents' desires to refuse hepatitis B and rotavirus vaccines. Almost all providers indicated that they see patients whose parents request to refuse or delay from vaccinations at least occasionally (88% and 97%, respectively). Only 37% of respondents indicated that they would be supportive of a policy requiring them to sign off on a parent's decision to refuse vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination providers in Arizona are generally very supportive of childhood immunizations but have varying comfort with exemption from individual vaccines. Responding providers tended to not support a requirement for a physician's signature for vaccine exemptions due to varying concerns regarding the implementation of such a practice.

Parents' source of vaccine information and impact on vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and nonmedical exemptions

In recent years, use of the Internet to obtain vaccine information has increased. Historical data are necessary to evaluate current vaccine information seeking trends in context. Between 2002 and 2003, surveys were mailed to 1,630 parents of fully vaccinated children and 815 parents of children with at least one vaccine exemption; 56.1% responded. Respondents were asked about their vaccine information sources, perceptions of these sources accuracy, and their beliefs about vaccination. Parents who did not view their child's healthcare provider as a reliable vaccine information source were more likely to obtain vaccine information using the Internet. Parents who were younger, more highly educated, and opposed to school immunization requirements were more likely than their counterparts to use the Internet for vaccine information. Compared to parents who did not use the Internet for vaccine information, those who sought vaccine information on the Internet were more likely to have lower perceptions of vaccine safety (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.66; 95% CI, 1.18–2.35), vaccine effectiveness (aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.32–2.53), and disease susceptibility (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49–2.90) and were more likely to have a child with a nonmedical exemption (aOR 3.53, 95% CI, 2.61–4.76). These findings provide context to interpret recent vaccine information seeking research.