Investigating why dissemination of scientific evidence fails to persuade antivaxxers : a transdisciplinary review

La plupart des Américains ne sont pas préoccupés par les vaccins. Cependant, minorité petite mais vocale l’est, et un nombre croissant de parents américains reçoivent des exemptions de vaccination pour leurs enfants sur la base de la religion ou de «convictions personnelles». Le refus vaccinal peut avoir des conséquences désastreuses: dans certaines communautés, la couverture vaccinale infantile a plongé bien en deçà du seuil requis pour «l'immunité collective», permettant à des maladies comme la rougeole d'opérer un retour en force. L'hésitation vaccinale et le refus vaccinal sont souvent attribués au manque de connaissances ou de compréhension des « faits » scientifiques des anti-vaccins. La plupart des interventions de santé publique qui visent à promouvoir la vaccination reposent sur la simple diffusion de connaissances scientifiques fiables; la communication scientifique est perçue comme un processus à sens unique de diffusion des connaissances scientifiques. La théorie est la suivante : si les anti-vaccins savaient à quel point les vaccins sont sécuritaires, efficaces et nécessaires, ils vaccineraient davantage. Malheureusement, la littérature dans plusieurs disciplines suggère que de telles interventions d'éducation passive à l'échelle de la communauté sont généralement inefficaces pour persuader les anti-vaccins d'adopter des attitudes et des comportements pro-vaccination. Pourquoi? En m'inspirant des principes de transdisciplinarité d'Edgar Morin, de la théorie des révolutions scientifiques de Thomas Kuhn et de la méthodologie de revue méta-narrative de Trisha Greenhalgh, j'examine les publications de différents auteurs phares de différentes disciplines qui fournissent directement ou indirectement une réponse à cette question. Je distingue trois approches principales, qui diffèrent quant à leur explication générale des raisons pour lesquelles les interventions basées sur la simple diffusion de preuves scientifiques échouent. La première explication est que les anti-vaccins n'ont pas les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires pour comprendre les preuves scientifiques qui leur sont présentées. La deuxième est que la résistance des anti-vaccins aux preuves scientifiques peut s’expliquer par de nombreux biais cognitifs qui anènent les individus à faire des erreurs systématiques de jugement et à s'écarter ainsi de l’idéal décisionnel de la théorie du choix rationnel. Le troisième narratif sur les anti-vaccins met l'accent sur les influences socioculturelles. Selon la théorie de la cognition culturelle, la culture influence les perceptions du risque à travers des biais cognitifs. Ces trois narratifs sur l'hésitation et le refus de la vaccination sont examinés en profondeur afin de fournir une synthèse interdisciplinaire des facteurs qui peuvent expliquer l'échec des interventions de santé publique basées sur l'éducation à persuader les anti-vaccins.Most Americans are not concerned about vaccines. However, a small but vocal minority is, and a growing number of parents are receiving vaccine mandate exemptions for their children on the basis of religion or “personal belief.” Vaccine refusal can have disastrous consequences: in some communities, childhood vaccination coverage has dived well below the threshold required for “herd immunity,” allowing diseases like measles to stage a forceful comeback. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are often attributed to a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of scientific “facts” on the part of antivaxxers. Most public health interventions that aim to promote vaccination rely on disseminating trustworthy scientific knowledge and see science communication as a one-way process of diffusion of scientific evidence. If antivaxxers knew how safe, effective, and necessary vaccines are, the theory goes, they would vaccinate more. Unfortunately, literature across disciplines suggests that such passive, community-wide education interventions are mostly ineffective at persuading antivaxxers to adopt pro-vaccination attitudes and behaviours. Why? Inspired by Edgar Morin’s principles of transdisciplinarity, Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, and Trisha Greenhalgh’s meta-narrative review methodology, I examine the publications of different seminal authors across disciplines that directly or indirectly provide an answer to this question. I distinguish three main approaches, which differ as to their general explanation of why interventions based on simple dissemination of scientific evidence fail. The first explanation is that antivaxxers lack the scientific literacy that is necessary to understand the scientific evidence that is presented to them. The second is that antivaxxers’ resistance to scientific evidence can be explained by the numerous cognitive biases and “rules of thumb” that lead individuals to make systematic errors in judgment and thus deviate from the rational choice theory decision-making ideal. The third narrative stresses sociocultural influences. According to cultural cognition theory, culture influences risk perceptions through the mechanisms of cognitive biases and heuristics. These three narratives about vaccine hesitancy and refusal are thoroughly examined in order to provide a cross-disciplinary synthesis of factors that may explain the failure of education-based public health interventions to persuade antivaxxers

Perception des éducatrices de l’intégration au préscolaire d’enfants ayant des besoins particuliers : une étude exploratoire

For children with special needs, integration into childcare services is essential, notably because it promotes their development. Yet, in Quebec, very few places available are actually occupied by these children. Their low representation in these environments could be due to the educators’ beliefs, which may also influence their adaptation. The goal of the present study is to explore the perspective of educators regarding the adjustment of 173 children from a clinical population. Educators’ responses to the question “Does the child benefit from the daycare?” were coded as positive, nuanced, or negative. The children’s social competence was assessed by the Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation scale (SCBE; LaFrenière et al., 1995). Most perceptions were positive (71%). Analysis of the factors influencing educators’ perceptions revealed a significant association with social competence and child diagnosis, but not with type of daycare. Thus, the educators mostly perceive integration of children with special needs positively.Pour les enfants ayant des besoins particuliers, l’intégration au préscolaire est essentielle, puisqu’elle permet de promouvoir leur développement. Pourtant, au Québec, ils occupent peu des places disponibles et leur faible représentation pourrait être due aux croyances des éducatrices, ces croyances pouvant également influencer leur adaptation. Cette étude explore les perceptions des éducatrices quant à l’adaptation de 173 enfants d’une population clinique, par leur réponse à la question « L’enfant profite-t-il de la garderie ? ». Les réponses sont codifiées selon qu’elles reflètent des perceptions positives, nuancées ou négatives. Le Profil socio-affectif (PSA) de LaFrenière et al. (1997) a servi à mesurer la compétence sociale des enfants. La majorité des perceptions est positive (71 %). L’analyse des facteurs d’influence de la perception révèle des associations significatives avec la compétence sociale de l’enfant et son diagnostic, mais pas avec le type de milieu fréquenté. Les éducatrices perçoivent majoritairement les enfants vus en pédopsychiatrie comme profitant de la garderie

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries