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
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

7389-7396

Informations 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

Auteurs

Martine Stead (M)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: martine.stead@stir.ac.uk.

Allison Ford (A)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: a.j.ford@stir.ac.uk.

Douglas Eadie (D)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: douglas.eadie@stir.ac.uk.

Hannah Biggs (H)

NatCen The National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, London EC1V 0AX, UK. Electronic address: Hannah.Biggs@scotcen.org.uk.

Claire Elliott (C)

NatCen The National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, London EC1V 0AX, UK. Electronic address: Claire.Elliott@scotcen.org.uk.

Michael Ussher (M)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK; Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK. Electronic address: mussher@sgul.ac.uk.

Helen Bedford (H)

Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Electronic address: h.bedford@ucl.ac.uk.

Kathryn Angus (K)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: kathryn.angus@stir.ac.uk.

Kate Hunt (K)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: kate.hunt@stir.ac.uk.

Anne Marie MacKintosh (AM)

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. Electronic address: a.m.mackintosh@stir.ac.uk.

Curtis Jessop (C)

NatCen The National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, London EC1V 0AX, UK. Electronic address: curtis.jessop@natcen.ac.uk.

Andy MacGregor (A)

NatCen The National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, London EC1V 0AX, UK. Electronic address: Andy.MacGregor@scotcen.org.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH