Exploring California’s new law eliminating personal belief exemptions to childhood vaccines and vaccine decision-making among homeschooling mothers in California

McDonald, Patricia; Limaye, Rupali J.; Omer, Saad B.; Buttenheim, Alison M.; Mohanty, Salini; Klein, Nicola P.; Salmon, Daniel A.

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.12.018

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vaccine hesitancy is a growing issue ( 119 ) which poses risks and costs to societies and individuals alike, including increased infection rates, economic costs, and decreased herd immunity. Vaccine hesitancy is facilitated by a number of factors, including the option to obtain non-medical exemptions in several states ( 120 ) which increases the likelihood of disease outbreaks. An overwhelming driver of vaccine hesitancy is the belief of adverse reactions that an individual can have to vaccines.…”

Section: Section 5: Actual Risks Costs and Benefits Of Vaccine Undementioning

confidence: 99%

Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use

Wagner

Prentice

Saad-Roy

et al. 2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite vast improvements in global vaccination coverage during the last decade, there is a growing trend in vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal globally. This has implications for the acceptance and coverage of a potential vaccine against COVID-19. In the United States, the number of children exempt from vaccination for “philosophical belief-based” non-medical reasons increased in 12 of the 18 states that allowed this policy from 2009 to 2017 (1). Meanwhile, the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially in young children, have led to increasing rates of drug resistance that threaten our ability to treat infectious diseases. Vaccine hesitancy and antibiotic overuse exist side-by-side in the same population of young children, and it is unclear why one modality (antibiotics) is universally seen as safe and effective, while the other (vaccines) is seen as potentially hazardous by some. In this review, we consider the drivers shaping the use of vaccines and antibiotics in the context of three factors: individual incentives, risk perceptions, and social norms and group dynamics. We illustrate how these factors contribute to the societal and individual costs of vaccine underuse and antimicrobial overuse. Ultimately, we seek to understand these factors that are at the nexus of infectious disease epidemiology and social science to inform policy-making.

show abstract

Section: Section 5: Actual Risks Costs and Benefits Of Vaccine Undementioning

confidence: 99%

Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use

Wagner

Prentice

Saad-Roy

et al. 2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, parents consistently perceived mandating vaccination as an infringement of their personal rights. [17, 23, 25, 26, 28] In a sample of parents who had refused mandatory vaccination, the mandate had strengthened their commitment to make autonomous medical decisions for themselves and their child. [24] Second, parents thought that schemes should not “punish” the child by not allowing them access to schooling or childcare based on the parents’ choice not to vaccinate them (parental preferences for mandatory vaccination schemes).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scores for studies ranged between three and ten (see supplementary materials). Qualitative studies scored highly, between nine and ten, [17,[23][24][25][26][27] aside from one short article which scored poorly (five). [28] Two quantitative studies scored highly (eight or nine), [29,30] Support for mandatory vaccination schemes varied.…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parental attitudes towards mandatory vaccination; a systematic review

Smith

Hodson

Rubin

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While mandatory vaccination schemes can increase vaccine uptake rates, they can also cause backlash among some parents. We conducted a systematic review investigating parental beliefs about vaccine mandates and factors associated with support for mandatory vaccination schemes. We searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, APA PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to 17th September 2020. Seventeen studies (five qualitative, twelve quantitative) were eligible for inclusion. We synthesised results of qualitative and quantitative studies separately. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to schemes investigated and factors investigated. Quantitative studies found little evidence for any factors being consistently associated with support for mandatory vaccination. Qualitative studies found that parents perceived mandatory vaccination schemes as an infringement of their rights and that they preferred universal, compared to targeted, schemes. To optimise engagement with existing child mandatory vaccination legislation, schemes should be designed with parental beliefs in mind.

show abstract

“…To the author’s knowledge, this thesis is currently the most robust academic endeavour to develop the evidence base to study the effect of national law and policy on access to medicines in LMICs. A large body of public health law implementation and evaluation research exists, albeit mostly in the US context [ 28 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. These studies are often based on reliable online repositories of legislation and policy in English, implementation mechanisms described in scholarship and understood in practice, and robust datasets of outcome measures- all of which are commonly unavailable or underdeveloped in LMIC contexts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal access to essential medicines as part of the right to health: a cross-national comparison of national laws, medicines policies, and health system indicators

Perehudoff

2020

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Access to essential medicines for the world's poor and vulnerable has made little progress since 2000, except for a few specific medicines such as antiretrovirals for HIV/ AIDS. Human rights principles written into national law can create a supportive environment for universal access to medicines; however, systematic research and policy guidance on this topic is lacking. Objective: To examine how international human rights law and WHO's essential medicines policies are embedded in national law for medicines affordability and financing, and interpreted and implemented in practice to promote universal access to essential medicines. Methods: This thesis consists of (1) a cross-national content analysis of 192 national constitutions, 71 national medicines policies, and legislation for universal health coverage (UHC) from 16 mostly low-and middle-income countries; (2) a case study of medicines litigation in Uruguay, and (3) a follow-up report of eight right to health indicators for access to medicines from 195 countries. Results: Some, but not all, of the 12 principles from human rights law and WHO's policy are embedded in national UHC law and medicines policies (part 1). Even the most rights-compliant legislation for access to medicines is subject to the unique and inconsistent interpretation of domestic courts, which may be inconsistent with the right to health in international law (part 2). Many national health systems for which data were available still fail to meet the official targets for eight indicators of access to medicines (part 3). Conclusions: International human rights law and WHO policy are embedded in national law for essential medicines and practically implemented in national health systems. Law makers can use these findings and the example texts in this thesis as a starting point for writing and monitoring governments' rights-based legal commitments for access to medicines. Future research should study the effect of national law on access to medicines and population health.

show abstract

Exploring California’s new law eliminating personal belief exemptions to childhood vaccines and vaccine decision-making among homeschooling mothers in California

Abstract: Background: California's Senate Bill 277 (SB-277) law eliminated the personal belief exemption to school immunization requirements. A potential consequence may be that parents choose homeschooling to avoid immunization.

Cited by 18 publications

References 26 publications

Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use

Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use

Parental attitudes towards mandatory vaccination; a systematic review

Universal access to essential medicines as part of the right to health: a cross-national comparison of national laws, medicines policies, and health system indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About