Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32785248›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Vaccination discourses among chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths: A qualitative content analysis of academic literature and Canadian organizational webpages.

Eric Filice, Eve Dubé, Janice E Graham, Noni E MacDonald, Julie A Bettinger, Devon Greyson, Shannon MacDonald, S Michelle Driedger, Greg Kawchuk, Samantha B Meyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Eric FiliceSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5743-7279
Eve DubéDépartement Anthropologie, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Janice E GrahamPediatrics (Infectious Diseases), Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Noni E MacDonaldPediatrics (Infectious Diseases), Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Julie A BettingerVaccine Evaluation Center, BC Children's Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Devon GreysonDepartment of Communication, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4860-384X
Shannon MacDonaldFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
S Michelle DriedgerDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Greg KawchukFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Samantha B MeyerSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2098-2828

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy-the reluctance to receive recommended vaccination because of concerns and doubts about vaccines-is recognized as a significant threat to the success of vaccination programs and has been associated with recent major outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Moreover, the association between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal has been frequently reported in the literature. To date, significant gaps persist in our understanding of contemporary Canadian CAM providers' beliefs regarding vaccination and how socio-professional influences may shape their vaccine-related attitudes and behaviours. To address the latter gap, the current study aims to explore the content of professional guidelines, recommendations and other discourses among CAM providers as they concern vaccination by analyzing both academic, peer-reviewed literature and Canadian organizational webpages prepared by and/or for practicing chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths. In the academic literature, we identified a number of complex and diverging views on vaccination that spanned topics of effectiveness; safety; theoretical, empirical, and ethical soundness; political justifiability; and compatibility with CAM philosophy and professional boundaries. However, in its current state the CAM literature cannot be described in broad strokes as being either pro- or anti-vaccination without considering finer areas of disagreement. Compared to the academic literature, which focuses more on the conceptual and evidentiary basis of vaccination, a greater proportion of vaccine-related content on Canadian CAM organizations' webpages seems to be dedicated to offering specific directives and prescriptions to providers. Guidelines and standards of practice address a number of issues, including vaccine administration, counsel, education and marketing. As CAM organizations further evolve in Canada and elsewhere as part of a broader "professionalization" initiative, greater attention will need to be directed at their role in shaping providers' beliefs and practices that both support and undermine vaccine promotion efforts.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesCanadaChiropracticFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHomeopathyHumansMaleNaturopathyVaccinationVaccination RefusalVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID32785248
PMCPMC7423113

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.