MMR Catch up Campaign: reasons for refusal to consent

Hadjikoumi, I

doi:10.1136/adc.2005.088898

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17,18 In several studies, fear of side-effects has been suggested as the main reason for refusal. 16,[19][20][21] Recent controversies concerning H1N1 vaccination indicate that the general population and media are more interested in potential adverse events of a vaccine rather than its effectiveness. 22 Preference for natural immunity and postponing vaccination so that children can develop more mature immune systems have also been given as reasons for non-vaccination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and risk perception of measles and factors associated with vaccination decisions in subjects consulting university affiliated public hospitals in Lyon, France, after measles infection

Touré

Saadatian‐Elahi

Floret

et al. 2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, a large number of European countries faced measles outbreaks, France accounting for more than half of the reported cases. The Rhône-Alpes region, located in south-east France, was one of the most affected provinces, with an incidence rate of 97.9 cases per 100 000 inhabitants. We conducted a retrospective survey of adults and parents of children consulting university affiliated public hospitals because of measles infections between January 1, 2010 and September 2012 in Lyon, France. Our main objectives were to evaluate (1) the level of study population knowledge of measles, (2) vaccination practices, and (3) changes in opinion with regard to measles vaccination after disease onset. Overall, 73.64% of patients were not vaccinated or partially vaccinated. The main reason for non-vaccination in children was inappropriate age while among non-vaccinated adults, 29.3% could not give any reason. In total, 29.1% of the responding parents and 24.2% of adult cases were opposed to vaccination "in principle." A large number of patients did not recognize measles as a serious illness and were unaware of its complications. Among parents of infected children, knowledge of transmission mode (odds ratio [OR] = 5.9; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.64-21.26), perceived severity of measles (OR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.06-2.13), and absence of hepatitis B vaccination (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04-0.65) were independently associated with a more positive opinion about measles vaccination after disease onset. In adult patients, low education level (OR = 3.39; 95% CI: 1.03-11.11) and lack of knowledge of sequelae (OR = 10.19; 95% CI: 1.14-91.31) were linked with a more positive opinion. Individuals affected by vaccine-preventable diseases are interesting populations to study disease impact on vaccine perception.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and risk perception of measles and factors associated with vaccination decisions in subjects consulting university affiliated public hospitals in Lyon, France, after measles infection

Touré

Saadatian‐Elahi

Floret

et al. 2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the reviews reveal that vaccination decision-making is a complex process, influenced by many factors. An important barrier for individuals in many settings is a lack of appropriate information, leading to doubts about the trade-offs between the benefits and risks of vaccination and to fears about side effects or other implications (Taylor 2002; Mills 2005; Casiday 2006; Hadjikoumi 2006; Pearce 2008). People may lack knowledge about how vaccinations 'work' and about the diseases they prevent (Woo 2004; Mills 2005; Casiday 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

Ames

Glenton

Lewin

2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

225

194

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChildhood vaccination is an effective way to prevent serious childhood illnesses, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. There are various reasons for this; some parents lack access because of poor quality health services, long distances or lack of money. Other parents may not trust vaccines or the healthcare workers who provide them, or they may not see the need for vaccination due to a lack of information or misinformation about how vaccinations work and the diseases they can prevent.Communication with parents about childhood vaccinations is one way of addressing these issues. Communication can take place at healthcare facilities, at home or in the community. Communication can be two-way, for example face-to-face discussions between parents and healthcare providers, or one-way, for instance via text messages, posters or radio programmes. Some types of communication enable parents to actively discuss vaccines and their benefits and harms, as well as diseases they can prevent. Other communication types simply give information about vaccination issues or when and where vaccines are available. People involved in vaccine programmes need to understand how parents experience different types of communication about vaccination and how this influences their decision to vaccinate.ObjectivesThe specific objectives of the review were to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring: parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences regarding communication about childhood vaccinations and the manner in which it is communicated; and the influence that vaccination communication has on parents' and informal caregivers' decisions regarding childhood vaccination.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-Index Citations (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), and Anthropology Plus (EbscoHost) databases for eligible studies from inception to 30 August 2016. We developed search strategies for each database, using guidelines developed by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group for searching for qualitative evidence as well as modified versions of the search developed for three related reviews of effectiveness. There were no date or geographic restrictions for the search.Selection criteriaWe included studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on the views and experiences of parents and informal caregivers regarding information about vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where information about childhood vaccinations was communicated or distributed.Data collection and analysisWe used maximum variation purposive sampling for data synthesis, using a three-step sampling frame. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparison strategy for data extraction and synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. High confidence suggests that it is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable repres...

show abstract

“…Many countries and societies today are faced with an overabundance of claims (things people say) about the effects of treatments and advice about what we should do to improve or maintain our health [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Some of these are about the effects of medical or surgical interventions, preventative or palliative individual and public health interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial

Semakula

Nsangi

Oxman

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Earlier, we designed and evaluated an educational mass media intervention for improving people's ability to think more critically and to assess the trustworthiness of claims (assertions) about the benefits and harms (effects) of treatments. The overall aims of this follow-up study were to evaluate the impact of our intervention 1 year after it was administered, and to assess retention of learning and behaviour regarding claims about treatments. Methods: We randomly allocated consenting parents to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control) over 7-10 weeks. Each intervention episode explained how the trustworthiness of treatment claims can be assessed by using relevant key concepts of evidence-informed decision-making. Participants listened to two episodes per week, delivered by research assistants. We evaluated outcomes immediately, and a year after the intervention. Primary outcomes were mean score and the proportion with a score indicating a basic ability to apply the key concepts (> 11 out of 18 correct answers) on a tool measuring people's ability to critically appraise the trustworthiness of treatment claims. Skills decay/retention was estimated by calculating the relative difference between the follow-up and initial results in the intervention group, adjusting for chance. Statistical analyses were performed using R (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version 3.4.3). Results: After 1 year, the mean score for parents in the intervention group was 58.9% correct answers, compared to 52.6% in the control (adjusted mean difference of 6.7% (95% CI 3.3% to 10.1%)). In the intervention group, 47.2% of 267 parents had a score indicating a basic ability to assess treatment claims compared to 39.5% of 256 parents in the control (adjusted difference of 9.8% more parents (95% CI 0.9% to 18.9%). These represent relative reductions of 29% in the mean scores and 33% in the proportion of parents with a score indicating a basic ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.

show abstract

MMR Catch up Campaign: reasons for refusal to consent

Cited by 19 publications

References 2 publications

Knowledge and risk perception of measles and factors associated with vaccination decisions in subjects consulting university affiliated public hospitals in Lyon, France, after measles infection

Knowledge and risk perception of measles and factors associated with vaccination decisions in subjects consulting university affiliated public hospitals in Lyon, France, after measles infection

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About