Elsevier

Vaccine

Volume 24, Issue 19, 8 May 2006, Pages 4041-4046
Vaccine

Review
Parental decision-making in childhood vaccination

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.02.037Get rights and content

Abstract

Recent concerns about childhood vaccines such as the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine have led to reduced vaccine uptake and increased probability of disease outbreaks. Psychological aspects of parental decision-making about vaccines are reviewed. Inconsistencies and gaps in the literature are highlighted and implications of what is known for public health are outlined. A decision theory model of the decision to vaccinate fits the facts well and generates practical strategies for uptake of MMR and similar childhood vaccines.

Introduction

There is currently a drop in vaccination coverage against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) in the UK which may lead to reduced herd immunity and large-scale outbreaks [1], [2] of serious diseases. Measles outbreaks, for instance, are likely to result in some children's deaths and lifelong disability in others. Parental concern about vaccines appears to be the main cause of the drop. In a UK study, around 70% of parents had concerns about MMR [3] and many chose to avoid vaccinating or choose single agent vaccines [4]. In parts of London, less than half of 5-year-old have had a full MMR course [5], well below the level at which outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease (VPD) are likely to occur [6].

The current MMR controversy gained strength after suggestions of a possible link between MMR and inflammatory bowel disease and perhaps autism received wide media coverage [7]. Parental concerns continue despite subsequent studies showing no link between MMR and autism [8], [9], [10] or inflammatory bowel disease [11]. This is not the first time parents have become concerned about vaccines; for example, similar concerns surrounded pertussis in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s [12]. Nor are concerns about vaccine safety in respect of children limited to the UK. A recent US study suggested that 15% of adults believe vaccines are unnecessary to prevent disease and that 61% believe that childhood vaccines are at least somewhat unsafe [13]. Recent concerns about the safety of polio vaccine in Nigeria led to a regional outbreak and severely set back a polio elimination programme [14].

Parental concerns are not the only factors affecting vaccine uptake. As with other types of healthcare, the poor are less likely to vaccinate. The direct and indirect costs of accessing healthcare and poor access to healthcare are important factors [15]. In the case of MMR, however, it is well-off parents who have more concerns and lower uptake [16]. The role of healthcare professionals in relation to vaccine uptake has also received attention. It is claimed that in 78–97% of cases where children attend a clinic and do not receive appropriate vaccinations, this is due to failures by professionals [17], [18] either through lack of information, ambivalence towards the vaccine or fear of litigation following any adverse event [19], [20]. However, these figures are based on routine vaccinations and may not apply where a vaccine has attracted controversy.

Just as parental concern is not the only factor in vaccine uptake so there is not a perfect match between parental concern and vaccination uptake. Ramsay et al. [3] found that even though 70% of UK parents had concerns about MMR, the majority still intended to vaccinate. Nonetheless, if parental concerns are raised, they can lead to a major reduction in vaccination rates. It is, therefore important to understand how parents consider possible risks associated with vaccination and the process by which they decide whether to have their children vaccinated. In this paper we review what is known about the genesis and maintenance of such concerns over risk and how available evidence fits into what is known about people's thinking about risk and probability.

Section snippets

Taking risky decisions

People take decisions frequently about all sorts of things, often fairly automatically, without much conscious thought. For most decisions, whether it be what dish one will choose in a restaurant, or whether a house will prove affordable or, with a rise in interest rates, bankrupt the buyer, available information is incomplete and of variable quality. Such problems cannot be solved through conventional mathematics and the mathematics of risk is, in any case, beyond most people's abilities. The

The nature of the evidence

There are problems not simply with the way in which evidence about vaccines is presented by the media but also with the nature of the evidence itself. Higher vaccine coverage leads to fewer VPDs and more VAEs. Few people in the UK are likely to be able to recall seeing or hearing of cases of serious sequelae from many vaccine preventable diseases [30], [31]. Diseases such as polio have been eradicated in the UK as a result of vaccination. If VAEs are proportional to the number of vaccinations

Other biases

It is well known that when people consider the risks from diseases, they consider not only the incidence of the disease but their personal susceptibility [34], based on representations of the sort of person who might be more or less susceptible to a particular disease. This fits in well with the use of an anchor and adjust approach to risk estimation. Children, especially younger children, are often perceived to be particularly susceptible to particular diseases. The view that children are

Taking a decision

Having formed an impression of the risks associated with vaccination and/or non-vaccination a parent still has to make a decision about whether to vaccinate. This might seem to be a simple accounting matter, costs versus benefits. However, the costs and the benefits are not easily compared because they lack a common ‘currency’ (for instance, comparing a small possible risk of autism versus a larger but still small risk of death). People also show systematic biases in their preferences for costs

Implications

In this paper we have explored what is known about childhood vaccination in the light of decision theory. If our analysis is correct, it has important implications for the problem of encouraging parents to vaccinate their children, assuming that there is strong scientific evidence that such a strategy is likely to prove optimal in protecting the children's health [12]. It is repeatedly suggested in the literature that simply providing better information to parents will cause them to vaccinate

References (50)

  • T. Schlenker et al.

    Measles herd immunity: the association of attack rates with immunization rates in preschool children

    J Am Med Assoc

    (1992)
  • A. Patja et al.

    Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up

    Pediatr Infect Dis J

    (2000)
  • K. Madsen et al.

    A population based study of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and autism

    N Engl J Med

    (2002)
  • R. Davis et al.

    Measles-mumps-rubella and other measles-containing vaccines do not increase the risk for inflammatory bowel disease

    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

    (2001)
  • E. Gangarosa et al.

    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

    Lancet

    (1988)
  • D. Neumann et al.

    Attitudes about childhood immunization—2003 survey results

  • M. Kuppermann et al.

    Parents’ preferences for outcomes associated with childhood vaccinations

    Pediatr Infect Dis J

    (2000)
  • J. Lewis et al.

    Misleading media reporting? The MMR story

    Nat Rev Immunol

    (2003)
  • D. Gamertsfelder et al.

    Immunization barriers in a family practice residency clinic

    J Am Board Fam Pract

    (1994)
  • W. Hueston et al.

    Delays in childhood immunizations in public and private settings

    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

    (1994)
  • D. Pathman et al.

    The Awareness-to-Adherence Model of the steps to clinical guideline compliance: the case of pediatric vaccine recommendations

    Med Care

    (1996)
  • M. Petrovic et al.

    Second dose of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: Questionnaire study of health professionals

    Br Med J

    (2001)
  • D. Kahneman et al.

    Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases

    (1982)
  • G. Gigerenzer et al.

    Simple heuristics that make us smart

    (1999)
  • Laurance J. The town divided by a deadly disease. Independent 2004 2nd...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text