Considerable doubt about rubella screening and vaccination among unvaccinated orthodox protestant women: a mixed-methods study.
Decision making
Intention
Religious belief
Rubella
Vaccine hesitancy
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 04 2023
14 04 2023
Historique:
received:
16
10
2022
accepted:
07
04
2023
medline:
18
4
2023
entrez:
14
4
2023
pubmed:
15
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Women who are susceptible to rubella are advised to vaccinate against rubella to prevent infection in future pregnancies, and thus avert the risk of congenital rubella syndrome in their unborn child. Rubella outbreaks periodically occur in the under-vaccinated orthodox Protestant community in the Netherlands. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to determine and understand personal experience with rubella, perceived rubella susceptibility, and intention to accept rubella screening and vaccination among unvaccinated orthodox Protestant women. The ultimate aim of this study was to inform policy and practice and contribute to the prevention of cases of congenital rubella syndrome. A mixed-methods study was conducted combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews among unvaccinated Dutch orthodox Protestant women aged 18-40 years. Descriptive analysis was used for quantitative data. Qualitative data was analysed using codes and categories. Results of the survey (167 participants) showed that most participants had personal experience with rubella (74%, 123/167) and 101 women (61%, 101/167) indicated they had had rubella themselves. More than half of the women were undecided whether to accept rubella susceptibility screening (56%; 87/156) or rubella vaccination (55%; 80/146). Qualitative findings (10 participants) showed that most women thought they were not susceptible to rubella. Indecisiveness and negative attitudes to accept rubella vaccination were related with religious arguments to object vaccination and with women's perception of absence of imminent threat of rubella. Furthermore, results showed presence of misconceptions among women in the interpretation of their susceptibility and high confidence in their parents' memory that they had experienced rubella as a child although no laboratory screening had been conducted. In light of an imminent rubella outbreak in the Netherlands, a tailored education campaign should be prepared aimed at and established in cooperation with the under-vaccinated orthodox Protestant community. Health care providers should provide adequate information on rubella and support decision-making in order to stimulate women to make a deliberate and informed decision on rubella screening and, if necessary, subsequent vaccination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Women who are susceptible to rubella are advised to vaccinate against rubella to prevent infection in future pregnancies, and thus avert the risk of congenital rubella syndrome in their unborn child. Rubella outbreaks periodically occur in the under-vaccinated orthodox Protestant community in the Netherlands. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to determine and understand personal experience with rubella, perceived rubella susceptibility, and intention to accept rubella screening and vaccination among unvaccinated orthodox Protestant women. The ultimate aim of this study was to inform policy and practice and contribute to the prevention of cases of congenital rubella syndrome.
METHODS
A mixed-methods study was conducted combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews among unvaccinated Dutch orthodox Protestant women aged 18-40 years. Descriptive analysis was used for quantitative data. Qualitative data was analysed using codes and categories.
RESULTS
Results of the survey (167 participants) showed that most participants had personal experience with rubella (74%, 123/167) and 101 women (61%, 101/167) indicated they had had rubella themselves. More than half of the women were undecided whether to accept rubella susceptibility screening (56%; 87/156) or rubella vaccination (55%; 80/146). Qualitative findings (10 participants) showed that most women thought they were not susceptible to rubella. Indecisiveness and negative attitudes to accept rubella vaccination were related with religious arguments to object vaccination and with women's perception of absence of imminent threat of rubella. Furthermore, results showed presence of misconceptions among women in the interpretation of their susceptibility and high confidence in their parents' memory that they had experienced rubella as a child although no laboratory screening had been conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of an imminent rubella outbreak in the Netherlands, a tailored education campaign should be prepared aimed at and established in cooperation with the under-vaccinated orthodox Protestant community. Health care providers should provide adequate information on rubella and support decision-making in order to stimulate women to make a deliberate and informed decision on rubella screening and, if necessary, subsequent vaccination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37059997
doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15625-8
pii: 10.1186/s12889-023-15625-8
pmc: PMC10102676
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
693Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Feb;30(3):274-278
pubmed: 27002428
Euro Surveill. 2017 Jan 19;22(3):
pubmed: 28128092
Vaccine. 2022 Aug 19;40(35):5213-5222
pubmed: 35927135
Eur J Public Health. 2017 Jun 1;27(3):524-530
pubmed: 28115420
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Jun;22(3):359-64
pubmed: 21715468
BMC Public Health. 2011 Feb 14;11:102
pubmed: 21320348
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Sep;28(9):795-800
pubmed: 19710586
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 12;15(11):e0242261
pubmed: 33180859
J Infect Chemother. 2014 Mar;20(3):194-8
pubmed: 24462433
Vaccine. 2017 Sep 5;35(37):4840-4850
pubmed: 28760616
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jun 06;12:408
pubmed: 22672710
Environ Health Prev Med. 2021 Aug 11;26(1):77
pubmed: 34380430
Lancet. 2015 Jun 6;385(9984):2297-307
pubmed: 25576992
Epidemiol Infect. 2009 Sep;137(9):1319-22
pubmed: 19192319
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Aug;15(8):922-6
pubmed: 25981883