Global assessment of national mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance.
Compliance
Mandatory
Penalties
Policy
Vaccination
Vaccine hesitancy
Vaccines
Journal
Vaccine
ISSN: 1873-2518
Titre abrégé: Vaccine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8406899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 11 2020
17 11 2020
Historique:
received:
03
07
2020
revised:
18
09
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
entrez:
9
11
2020
pubmed:
10
11
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Declining vaccination coverage and increasing hesitancy is a worldwide concern. Many countries have implemented mandatory vaccination policies to promote vaccination. However, mandatory vaccination policies differ significantly by country. Beyond case studies, no comprehensive study has compared these policies or the penalties for non-compliance on a global scale. We conducted extensive keyword, policy, and literature searches to identify mandatory national vaccination policies globally and develop a comprehensive database. A mandatory national vaccination policy was defined as a policy from a national authority that requires individuals to receive at least one vaccination based on age or to access a service. Two reviewers independently evaluated evidence for a mandate and whether non-compliance penalties were incorporated. We categorized penalties into four types, based on the nature of the penalty. These penalties impact an individual's financial, parental rights, educational (i.e., child's school entry and access), and liberty status. We rated the severity within each category. Of 193 countries investigated, 54% (n = 105) had evidence of a nationwide mandate as of December 2018. The frequency, types, and severity of penalties varied widely across all regions. We found that 59% (n = 62) of countries with national mandates defined at least one penalty for non-compliance with a vaccine mandate. Among those, educational penalties (i.e., limiting a child's entry or ongoing access to school) were the most common (69%; n = 43), with most countries with educational penalties refusing school enrollment until vaccination requirements are met (81%; n = 35). We undertook a comprehensive assessment of national mandatory vaccination policies and identified a diversity of penalties in place to promote compliance. Our results highlight the need to critically evaluate the implementation of non-compliance penalties in order to determine their effectiveness and to define best practices for sustaining high vaccination uptake worldwide.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Declining vaccination coverage and increasing hesitancy is a worldwide concern. Many countries have implemented mandatory vaccination policies to promote vaccination. However, mandatory vaccination policies differ significantly by country. Beyond case studies, no comprehensive study has compared these policies or the penalties for non-compliance on a global scale.
METHODS
We conducted extensive keyword, policy, and literature searches to identify mandatory national vaccination policies globally and develop a comprehensive database. A mandatory national vaccination policy was defined as a policy from a national authority that requires individuals to receive at least one vaccination based on age or to access a service. Two reviewers independently evaluated evidence for a mandate and whether non-compliance penalties were incorporated. We categorized penalties into four types, based on the nature of the penalty. These penalties impact an individual's financial, parental rights, educational (i.e., child's school entry and access), and liberty status. We rated the severity within each category.
RESULTS
Of 193 countries investigated, 54% (n = 105) had evidence of a nationwide mandate as of December 2018. The frequency, types, and severity of penalties varied widely across all regions. We found that 59% (n = 62) of countries with national mandates defined at least one penalty for non-compliance with a vaccine mandate. Among those, educational penalties (i.e., limiting a child's entry or ongoing access to school) were the most common (69%; n = 43), with most countries with educational penalties refusing school enrollment until vaccination requirements are met (81%; n = 35).
CONCLUSION
We undertook a comprehensive assessment of national mandatory vaccination policies and identified a diversity of penalties in place to promote compliance. Our results highlight the need to critically evaluate the implementation of non-compliance penalties in order to determine their effectiveness and to define best practices for sustaining high vaccination uptake worldwide.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33164808
pii: S0264-410X(20)31234-2
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.063
pmc: PMC8562319
mid: NIHMS1639936
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7865-7873Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI132496
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and have no conflicts of interest to declare. NEB has received research grants from the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the US National Institutes of Health; KG had financial support from the Grand Challenges Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) of the University of Minnesota; there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Nature. 2019 Jul;571(7766):469-472
pubmed: 31332351
Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 5;162(9):655-6
pubmed: 25751746
Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):
pubmed: 31932361
Vaccine. 2018 Jul 5;36(29):4236-4244
pubmed: 29885772
Vaccine. 2018 Sep 18;36(39):5811-5818
pubmed: 30143274
EBioMedicine. 2016 Oct;12:295-301
pubmed: 27658738
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Oct 26;115(43):723-730
pubmed: 30518471
Euro Surveill. 2019 Jun;24(26):
pubmed: 31266589
Vaccine. 2020 Jan 16;38(3):680-689
pubmed: 31679861
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 14;14(2):e0212270
pubmed: 30763355
Lancet. 2006 Feb 4;367(9508):436-42
pubmed: 16458770
Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129(6):1056-63
pubmed: 22566425
Vaccine. 2018 Mar 27;36(14):1801-1803
pubmed: 29506923
N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28;369(22):2152-8
pubmed: 24283231
JAMA. 2006 Oct 11;296(14):1757-63
pubmed: 17032989
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 20;367(12):1170-1
pubmed: 22992099
Science. 2017 Oct 27;358(6362):458-459
pubmed: 29074762
Euro Surveill. 2019 Jun;24(26):
pubmed: 31266592
Nat Immunol. 2019 Oct;20(10):1257-1259
pubmed: 31477920
Pediatrics. 2019 Jun;143(6):
pubmed: 31113831
Euro Surveill. 2012 May 31;17(22):
pubmed: 22687916
Nature. 2019 Jul 16;:
pubmed: 32665680
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Nov;58(11):1081-8
pubmed: 16223649
JAMA. 2016 Mar 15;315(11):1149-58
pubmed: 26978210
Vaccine. 2018 Mar 7;36(11):1435-1443
pubmed: 29428176
JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63
pubmed: 18000199
CMAJ. 2011 Nov 8;183(16):E1165-6
pubmed: 21969405