Parental trust and beliefs after the discovery of a six-year-long failure to vaccinate.
Vaccine preventable diseases
failure to vaccinate
health information
immunization
vaccine hesitancy
Journal
Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics
ISSN: 2164-554X
Titre abrégé: Hum Vaccin Immunother
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101572652
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2021
01 02 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
5
8
2020
medline:
23
6
2021
entrez:
5
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In Italy vaccine hesitancy worsened after a failure to vaccinate episode that took place in Friuli Venezia-Giulia Region until early 2017 which undermined herd immunity by leaving unprotected more than 5,444 children. Between May and June 2017, 2,557 parents were surveyed at the local vaccination clinic where they were invited within the subsequent extraordinary vaccination campaign. The aim of the survey was to evaluate whether the multi-channel extraordinary vaccination campaign had reached the target population and to know parental beliefs and trusted sources of information after the failure to vaccinate event. While 279 parents were non-hesitant (10.9%) and 1,491 hesitant acceptors (58.3%), just 38 (1.5%) refused to have their children revaccinated. Overall, the most consulted sources of information were print media (18.8%), physicians (16.0%), relatives and friends (12.1%). The majority of parents considered vaccination as a fundamental practice (73.9%), but many were worried about potential side effects (38.8%) or doubtful about the effectiveness of some vaccines (11.0%). According to parents, 19.7% of them (57) changed their opinion about vaccines after the Codroipo case. After the Codroipo case, most parents chose to have their children re-vaccinated and just a little proportion refused the re-administration of vaccines. More studies are needed to confirm the importance of a coherent multi-channel communication strategy using both traditional and new media in order to counteract vaccine hesitancy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In Italy vaccine hesitancy worsened after a failure to vaccinate episode that took place in Friuli Venezia-Giulia Region until early 2017 which undermined herd immunity by leaving unprotected more than 5,444 children.
METHODS
Between May and June 2017, 2,557 parents were surveyed at the local vaccination clinic where they were invited within the subsequent extraordinary vaccination campaign. The aim of the survey was to evaluate whether the multi-channel extraordinary vaccination campaign had reached the target population and to know parental beliefs and trusted sources of information after the failure to vaccinate event.
RESULTS
While 279 parents were non-hesitant (10.9%) and 1,491 hesitant acceptors (58.3%), just 38 (1.5%) refused to have their children revaccinated. Overall, the most consulted sources of information were print media (18.8%), physicians (16.0%), relatives and friends (12.1%). The majority of parents considered vaccination as a fundamental practice (73.9%), but many were worried about potential side effects (38.8%) or doubtful about the effectiveness of some vaccines (11.0%). According to parents, 19.7% of them (57) changed their opinion about vaccines after the Codroipo case.
CONCLUSIONS
After the Codroipo case, most parents chose to have their children re-vaccinated and just a little proportion refused the re-administration of vaccines. More studies are needed to confirm the importance of a coherent multi-channel communication strategy using both traditional and new media in order to counteract vaccine hesitancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32750274
doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1777820
pmc: PMC7899632
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
583-587Références
Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Mar;29(2):198-215
pubmed: 17381813
Pediatrics. 2013 May;131(5):e1397-404
pubmed: 23589813
Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2017 Jul-Sep;53(3):231-237
pubmed: 28956803
J R Soc Med. 2008 May;101(5):244-51
pubmed: 18463280
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(1):72-82
pubmed: 25483518
Vaccine. 2016 Dec 7;34(50):6375-6380
pubmed: 27817962
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Jan 06;13(1):e2
pubmed: 21212045
Vaccine. 2017 Mar 1;35(9):1209-1210
pubmed: 26657186
Vaccine. 2018 Feb 1;36(6):779-787
pubmed: 29325822
Euro Surveill. 2017 Sep 14;22(37):
pubmed: 28933342
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 20;10(10):e0140028
pubmed: 26485302
Euro Surveill. 2012 Jul 19;17(29):
pubmed: 22835470
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4155-6
pubmed: 25896381
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Aug;9(8):1763-73
pubmed: 23584253
Vaccine. 2012 Feb 8;30(7):1265-8
pubmed: 22197579
Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Nov;51(472):904-10
pubmed: 11761204
Vaccine. 2019 Apr 17;37(17):2294-2297
pubmed: 30878248
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(5):1268-71
pubmed: 25806425
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Aug;61(3):709-19
pubmed: 15899328
Vaccine. 2017 Aug 24;35(36):4673-4680
pubmed: 28757057
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Jul;112:1-11
pubmed: 24788111
Lancet. 2011 Aug 6;378(9790):526-35
pubmed: 21664679
BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec 16;13:1183
pubmed: 24341406
Vaccine. 2017 Sep 5;35(37):4840-4850
pubmed: 28760616
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Dec;21(12):2178-2187
pubmed: 28755045
Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):e1287-92
pubmed: 17079529