Article thumbnail

The public's acceptance of novel vaccines during a pandemic: a focus group study and its application to influenza H1N1

By N Henrich and B Holmes

Abstract

As influenza H1N1 spreads around the world, health officials are considering the development and use of a new vaccine to protect the public and help control the outbreak. Acceptance of novel vaccines during health crises, however, is influenced by perceptions of a range of risks, including the risk of infection, risk of becoming severely ill or dying if infected, as well as the risk of serious side and long-term effects of the vaccine. A study on 11 focus groups was conducted with the public in Vancouver, Canada in 2006 and 2007 to explore how people assess these risks and how these assessments relate to their willingness to use novel vaccines in a pandemic. Concerns about using new vaccines during a pandemic differ from concerns about using established products in a non-crisis situation. Participants were hesitant to use novel vaccines because of a low perception of the early risk of infection in a pandemic, coupled with the many uncertainties that surround new vaccines and the emerging infectious disease, and owing to the concern that unsafe pharmaceuticals may be rushed to market during a health crisis. Understanding the public´s assessment of the risks related to, and willingness to use, novel vaccines during a pandemic can help officials promote disease-control measures in ways that improve the likelihood of acceptance by the public and may increase uptake of an H1N1 vaccine

Topics: Original Research Articles
Publisher: CoAction Publishing
OAI identifier: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:3167653
Provided by: PubMed Central

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

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2008). A cultural species. In: Brown M (ed) Explaining Culture Scientifically.
  2. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change.
  3. (1998). Alternative health care: its use by individuals with physical disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehab
  4. (2001). Attitudes of homoeopathic physicians towards vaccination. Vaccine
  5. attitudes, and behaviors of Chinese Hepatitis B screening and vaccination.
  6. (2003). Behavior Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction.
  7. (2006). Census of Population, Statistics Canada catalogue no.
  8. Chiropractic antivaccination arguments.
  9. (2000). Communicating the threat of emerging infectious to the public. Emerg Infect Dis
  10. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model.
  11. (2009). Effect of ‘Time Famine’ on women’s self-care and household health care. Permanente J 2000;4:13–20. Vaccine acceptance during a pandemic Emerging Health Threats
  12. (1993). Gender and generation in poor women’s household health production experiences. Med Anthropol Q
  13. Health care expenditures of immigrants in the United States: a nationally representative analysis.
  14. Hispanics and healthcare in the United States: access, information and knowledge. AP e w Hispanic Center and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Research Report
  15. (2003). MMR vaccination advice over the Internet. Vaccine
  16. On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis.
  17. Organization. Epidemic and pandemic alert and response.
  18. (2009). Organization. Vaccines for the new influenza A (H1N1), updated
  19. (1995). Parental refusal to have children immunised: extent and reasons.
  20. Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination. Vaccine
  21. (2009). Statement by WHO Director-General,
  22. The effects of socioeconomic factors on the decision to be vaccinated: the case of flu shot vaccination.
  23. (2009). WHO sees shift to H1N1 vaccine production in weeks,
  24. (2007). Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation.
  25. (1987). Women’s roles, interest in health and health behavior. Women Health