Thoughts, beliefs and concepts concerning infectious childhood diseases of physicians practicing homeopathic, anthroposophic and conventional medicine - a qualitative study

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians: a qualitative study with general practitioners and paediatricians in Austria and Germany

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand reasons for vaccine hesitancy (VH) among general practioners (GPs) and paediatricians. We aim to analyse how and when the healthcare workers (HCWs) developed vaccine-hesitant views and how they transfer these to patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Semistructured interviews with vaccine-hesitant GPs and paediatricians were conducted in Austria and Germany using an explorative qualitative research design.

PARTICIPANTS

We contacted 41 physicians through letters and emails and 10 agreed to participate, five were male and five female.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Ten interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The material was analysed inductively following a grounded theory approach with open coding using the software atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Key themes that were identified were education and career path, understanding of medicine and medical profession, experiences with vaccines, doctor-patient interactions and continuous education activities and the link to VH. GPs and paediatricians' vaccine-hesitant attitudes developed during their medical training and, in particular, during extracurricular training in homeopathy, which most of the participants completed. Most participants work in private practices rather than with contracts with social insurance because they are not satisfied with the health system. Furthermore, they are critical of biomedicine. Most of the interview partners do not consider themselves antivaccination, but are sceptical towards vaccines and especially point out the side effects. Most do not vaccinate in their practices and some do only occasionally. Their vaccine-hesitant views are often fostered through respective online communities of vaccine-hesitant HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies on a connection between complementary medicine and vaccine-hesitant views of HCWs are needed. Education about vaccines and infectious diseases among healthworkers must increase especially tailored towards the use of internet and social media. Physicians should be made aware that through time and empathy towards their patients they could have a positive impact on undecided patients and parents regarding vaccine decisions.

Understanding and explaining the link between anthroposophy and vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Due to low vaccination uptake and measles outbreaks across Europe, public health authorities have paid increasing attention to anthroposophic communities. Public media outlets have further described these communities as vaccine refusers or "anti-vaxxers". The aim of this review was to understand the scope of the problem and explore assumptions about vaccination beliefs in anthroposophic communities. For the purpose of this review, we define anthroposophic communities as people following some/certain views more or less loosely connected to the philosophies of anthroposophy. The systematic review addresses three research questions and (1) collates evidence documenting outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities, (2) literature on vaccination coverage in anthroposophic communities, and (3) lastly describes literature that summarizes theories and factors influencing vaccine decision-making in anthroposophic communities.

METHODS

This is a systematic review using the following databases: Medline, Web of Science, Psycinfo, and CINAHL. Double-blinded article screening was conducted by two researchers. Data was summarized to address the research questions. For the qualitative research question the data was analysed using thematic analysis with the assistance of Nvivo12.0.

RESULTS

There were 12 articles documenting 18 measles outbreaks linked to anthroposophic communities between the years 2000 and 2012. Seven articles describe lower vaccination uptake in anthroposophic communities than in other communities, although one article describes that vaccination coverage in low-income communities with a migrant background was lower than in the anthroposophic community they studied. We found eight articles examining factors and theories influencing vaccine decision making in anthroposophic communities. The qualitative analysis revealed four common themes. Firstly, there was a very broad spectrum of vaccine beliefs among the anthroposophic communities. Secondly, there was a consistent narrative about problems or concerns with vaccines, including toxicity and lack of trust in the system. Thirdly, there was a strong notion of the importance of making individual and well-informed choices as opposed to simply following the masses. Lastly, making vaccine choices different from public health guidelines was highly stigmatized by those outside of the anthroposophic community but also those within the community.

CONCLUSION

Continuing to further knowledge of vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities is particularly important in view of increasing measles rates and potential sudden reliance on vaccines for emerging diseases. However, popular assumptions about vaccine beliefs in anthroposophic communities are challenged by the data presented in this systematic review.