Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30355355›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires an ethically consistent health strategy.

Laura Williamson, Hannah Glaab

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Attitudes, hesitancy, concerns, and inconsistencies regarding vaccines reported by parents of preschool children.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Antivaccine Messages on Facebook: Preliminary Audit.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Vaccine confidence: the keys to restoring trust.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy.The Permanente journal · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura WilliamsonBiobehavioral Health Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA. laurawilliamson07@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6461-2346
Hannah GlaabBiobehavioral Health Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to public health. The reasons are complex but linked inextricably to a lack of trust in vaccines, expertise and traditional sources of authority. Efforts to increase immunization uptake in children in many countries that have seen a fall in vaccination rates are two-fold: addressing hesitancy by improving healthcare professional-parent exchange and information provision in the clinic; and, secondly, public health strategies that can override parental concerns and values with coercive measures such as mandatory and presumptive vaccination. MAIN TEXT: It is argued that such conflicting, parallel approaches seriously risk undermining trust that is crucial for sustaining herd immunity. Although public health strategies can be ethically justified in limiting freedoms, a parent-centered approach seldom acknowledges how it is impacted by contemporaneous coercive measures. In addition, the clinical encounter is not well suited to helping parents consider the public dimensions of vaccination, despite these being important for trust formation and informed decision-making. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy require more consistent engagement of parental and citizen views. Along with evidence-based information, debates need to be informed by ethical support that equips parents and professionals to respond to the private and public dimensions of vaccination in a more even-handed, transparent manner.

conclusionEfforts to address vaccine hesitancy need to avoid simple reliance on either parental values or coercive public policies. To do this effectively requires increasing citizen engagement on vaccination to help inform a parent-centered approach and legitimize public policy measures. In addition, cultivating a more ethically consistent strategy means moving beyond the current silos of health ethics - clinical and public health ethics.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareDisease OutbreaksHealth PolicyHumansImmunity, HerdImmunizationMandatory ProgramsPatient-Centered CareTrustVaccinesVaccinesDeliberationEngagementEthicsHesitancyPublic healthPublic policyVaccination

Identifiers

PMID30355355
PMCPMC6201581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.