Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

'Avoiding harm to others' considerations in relation to parental MMR vaccination discussions : an analysis of an online chat forum

By Zoe Christina Skea, Vikki Entwistle, Ian Watt and Elizabeth Russell

Abstract

Vaccination against contagious diseases is intended to benefit individuals and contribute to the eradication of such diseases from the population as a whole. The Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine is widely recommended for all children with the aim of protecting against measles, mumps, and rubella. However, within the UK, there has been significant controversy surrounding its safety. This paper presents findings from a UK study of discussions about MMR in an online chat forum for parents. We observed archived discussions (without posting any messages) and conducted a thematic analysis to explore in more detail how participants discussed particular topics. Most participants were female, had young children, lived in the UK. They had reached a range of decisions regarding MMR vaccination. This analysis focuses on discussions about ‘avoiding harm to others,’ which were important considerations for many of the participating parents. In the context of concerns about MMR safety, participants expressed a desire to both (a) protect their own child and (b) help protect others by contributing to herd immunity. Parents made a distinction between healthy and vulnerable children which had important implications for their views about who should bear the burden of vaccination. Some parents were quite critical of those who did not vaccinate healthy children, and urged them to do so on grounds of social responsibility. Our findings suggest that social scientists with an interest in vaccination practice should attend carefully to lay understandings of herd immunity as a public good and views about obligations to others in society. Policy makers, too, might consider giving more emphasis to herd immunity in vaccination promotional material, although attention should be paid to the ways in which parents distinguish between healthy and vulnerable children.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Topics: Mass Immunization, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, RA Public aspects of medicine
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.006
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/253
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001).Parents' perspectives on the MMR immunisation: a focus group study.
  2. (1999). An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability. Health and Social Work.
  3. (2006). Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations.
  4. (1996). Cognitive processes and the decisions of some parents to forego pertussis vaccination for their children.
  5. (2006). Combined vaccines are like a sudden onslaught to the body’s immune system’: Parental concerns about vaccine ‘overload’ and ‘immune-vulnerability.’ Vaccine.
  6. (1997). Communicating breast cancer online: support and empowerment on the internet. Women and Health.26(1):65-84. doi
  7. (1982). Concepts of illness causation and responsibility. doi
  8. (2004). COVER programme:
  9. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities.
  10. (2001). Health Education Board for Scotland.
  11. (2004). Health risk communication and amplification: learning from the MMR vaccination controversy. Health, Risk and Society.6(1):7-17. doi
  12. (2006). Herd protection as a public good: vaccination and our obligations to others’
  13. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hypoplasia, non-specific coitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. doi
  14. (2004). Immunisation and Vaccine Preventable Diseases.
  15. (2005). Internet Discourse and Health Debates. doi
  16. (2007). Internet social support groups as moral agents: the ethical dynamics of HIV + status disclosure. doi
  17. (1990). Is the cultural context of MMR rejection a key to an effective public health discourse? Public Health.
  18. (2004). Lay voices on allergic conditions in children: Parents narratives and the negotiations of a diagnosis. Social Science and Medicine.
  19. (2004). MMR and Autism: What parents need to know.
  20. (2006). MMR doctor 'to face GMC charges'". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5070670.stm Casiday,
  21. (2005). MMR talk' and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton. Social Science and Medicine.61(3):709-719. doi
  22. (2001). MRC review of Autism Research. Epidemiology and causes.
  23. (2002). Parents refusing MMR: do GPs and health visitors understand why?
  24. (1983). The causes of disease: Women talking.
  25. (2002). The cold hard facts' immunisation and vaccine preventable diseases in Australia's newsprint media 1993-1998. Social Science and medicine.54:445-457.
  26. (1995). The risk of resistance: perspectives on the mass childhood immunisation programme In:Gabe,J. (Eds.) Medicine, Health and Risk: Sociological Approaches.
  27. (2000). The two-dose measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) immunisation schedule: factors affecting maternal intention to vaccinate. doi
  28. (2007). Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organized resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health and Illness.29(2):198-215.
  29. (2003). Understanding vaccination resistance: moving beyond risk.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.