A "step too far" or "perfect sense"? A qualitative study of British adults' views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports.
COVID-19
Mandatory vaccination
Public attitudes
Qualitative
Vaccine
Vaccine passports
Journal
Vaccine
ISSN: 1873-2518
Titre abrégé: Vaccine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8406899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 12 2022
05 12 2022
Historique:
received:
26
07
2021
revised:
02
05
2022
accepted:
23
05
2022
pubmed:
1
7
2022
medline:
7
12
2022
entrez:
30
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive.
METHODS
Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically.
FINDINGS
Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness.
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35773124
pii: S0264-410X(22)00696-X
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.072
pmc: PMC9162982
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7389-7396Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Eur J Public Health. 2016 Jun;26(3):378-81
pubmed: 26297722
N Engl J Med. 2021 Sep 9;385(11):e32
pubmed: 33789006
Vaccine. 2021 Jul 5;39(30):4046-4053
pubmed: 34140173
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jun 03;9(6):
pubmed: 34204971
BMJ. 2021 Apr 21;373:n1056
pubmed: 33883193
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 19;16(2):e0246941
pubmed: 33606782
Br J Nurs. 2021 Jan 28;30(2):116-121
pubmed: 33529104
Vaccine. 2019 Jan 3;37(1):69-75
pubmed: 30470641
Pediatrics. 2021 Jun;147(6):
pubmed: 33707197
JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Feb 1;175(2):125-126
pubmed: 32926083
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Feb;6(2):
pubmed: 33597280
BMJ. 2022 Feb 10;376:o353
pubmed: 35144930
JAMA. 2021 Feb 9;325(6):532-533
pubmed: 33372955
Ethn Health. 2022 Oct;27(7):1555-1574
pubmed: 34092149
J Community Health. 2022 Apr;47(2):237-245
pubmed: 34687388
JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1933-1934
pubmed: 33825831
BMJ. 2021 Apr 6;373:n905
pubmed: 33824155
JAMA. 2021 Apr 20;325(15):1503-1504
pubmed: 33720271
BMJ Open. 2021 Oct 28;11(10):e055085
pubmed: 34711602
BMJ. 2021 Aug 4;374:n1903
pubmed: 34348941
BMJ. 2021 Apr 1;373:n861
pubmed: 33795260
PLoS One. 2021 May 10;16(5):e0248372
pubmed: 33970933
Am J Public Health. 2021 Jun;111(6):1061-1064
pubmed: 33539177
J R Soc Med. 2021 May;114(5):235-236
pubmed: 34028294
J Med Ethics. 2021 Feb;47(2):78-85
pubmed: 33154088
J Law Biosci. 2021 Jul 08;8(1):lsab016
pubmed: 34258019
Vaccine. 2016 Apr 27;34(19):2259-66
pubmed: 26979137
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285