These results strongly suggest that social networks, and particularly parents' people networks, play an important role in parents' vaccination decision-making.

Highlights A thoughtful vaccination campaign is critical to ensure COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Social, behavioral, and communication science is essential to such a campaign. Meaningful messages from trusted spokespersons can crowd out misinformation. COVID-19 vaccines must be available at familiar, convenient locations that feel safe. Transparent decisions and public oversight mechanisms strengthen vaccine confidence.

No abstract

This study explores the effect of women’s autonomy on children’s health. Research was conducted among the Rendille, a traditionally nomadic pastoralist population living in northern Kenya. Using data collected from 435 women and 934 of their children, we tested the hypothesis that women with higher levels of autonomy would have children with better nutrition. Results of our study indicated that while women’s autonomy had no effect on younger—ages 0–35 months—children’s nutrition as measured by WHZ scores, greater levels of women’s autonomy were significantly associated with improved nutrition among older—ages 3–10 years—children. These results suggest that women’s autonomy is an important factor in relation to children’s health in some circumstances. In addition to exploring the applied aspects of our findings, we also suggest how considering the concept of women’s autonomy may add to the existing literature on parental investment.

No abstract

Background Stark gaps exist between projected health needs in a pandemic situation and the current capacity of health care and medical countermeasure systems. Existing pandemic ethics discussions have advocated to engage the public in scarcity dilemmas and attend the local contexts and cultural perspectives that shape responses to a global health threat. This public engagement study thus considers the role of community and culture in the ethical apportionment of scarce health resources, specifically ventilators, during an influenza pandemic. It builds upon a previous exploration of the values and preferences of Maryland residents regarding how a finite supply of mechanical ventilators ought to be allocated during a severe global outbreak of influenza. An important finding of this earlier research was that local history and place within the state engendered different ways of thinking about scarcity. Objective Given the intrastate variation in the themes expressed by Maryland participants, the project team sought to examine interstate differences by implementing the same protocol elsewhere to answer the following questions. Does variation in ethical frames of reference exist within different regions of the United States? What practical implications does evidence of sameness and difference possess for pandemic planners and policymakers at local and national levels? Methods Research using the same deliberative democracy process from the Maryland study was conducted in Central Texas in March 2018 among 30 diverse participants, half of whom identified as Hispanic or Latino. Deliberative democracy provides a moderated process through which community members can learn facts about a public policy matter from experts and explore their own and others’ views. Results Participants proposed that by evenly distributing supplies of ventilators and applying clear eligibility criteria consistently, health authorities could enable fair allocation of scarce lifesaving equipment. The strong identification, attachment, and obligation of persons toward their nuclear and extended families emerged as a distinctive regional and ethnic core value that has practical implications for the substance, administration, and communication of allocation frameworks. Conclusions Maryland and Central Texas residents expressed a common, overriding concern about the fairness of allocation decisions. Central Texas deliberants, however, more readily expounded upon family as a central consideration. In Central Texas, family is a principal, culturally inflected lens through which life and death matters are often viewed. Conveners of other pandemic-related public engagement exercises in the United States have advocated the benefits of transparency and inclusivity in developing an ethical allocation framework; this study demonstrates cultural competence as a further advantage.

While health care providers are often cited as parents’ most trusted source for information and advice about vaccination, parents differ in their level of receptiveness to pro-vaccination conversations. The purpose of this research was to identify points in individual parents’ decision-making processes when parents are particularly open to receiving information and advice from their children’s health care providers. Interview data were collected from 20 mothers and 5 couples. Analysis of these data suggested 3 primary circumstances when parents were particularly open to receiving information and advice: during parents’ initial decision-making, as parents continued to assess vaccination options, and during particular circumstances that prompted parents to reconsider previously made vaccination choices. These results provide a mechanism for providers to identify parents who may be particularly receptive to pro-vaccination conversations. By prioritizing conversations with parents at one of these points, health care providers’ efforts at promoting vaccination may be more effective.

No abstract