“Vaccine hesitancy” has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “delay in acceptance of vaccine despite the availability of vaccination services”. This definition also recognizes that vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines and it is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. When it comes to childhood vaccination campaigns, this issue can lead to very problematic outcomes in terms of public health. A factor playing a fundamental role in this dynamic is the source of information considered by parents in the decision-making progress that leads to the acceptance or refusal of childhood vaccinations. Previous studies show how selecting an alternative source of information, as opposed to a conventional and institutional one, can result into major skepticism or even refuse of childhood vaccinations. An online questionnaire was administered anonymously to the parents of students attending elementary, middle and high schools in Rome and Turin, through the electronic register of the schools they belong to. Two validated tools were used: the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines Survey (PACVs), and the Health Literacy Vaccinale degli adulti in Italiano (HLVa- IT). In a third section, vaccination hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 was assessed. Univariate analysis and logistic regression models were built to identify predictors of the preferred sources of information on the topic. 2301 answers to the survey were collected from June to October 2021. 1127 came from parents in Rome (49%) and 1174 from parents based in Turin (51%). The majority of the respondents were mothers (81%), married (73%), with 2 or more children (70,5%). Most of the parents have a degree or post-degree education (59%) and have an employment (90%). The average age in the selected sample was 47.7 years (Std. dev. 6.4). Our logistic regression model showed that fathers were more prone than mothers to use alternative sources of information (p=0.001, OR 1.32 – 2.63). Moreover, a score >50 on the PACV scale (p=0.004, OR 1.4 – 5.6) was a strong predictor for choosing an alternative source of information. Other predictors that showed a statistical significance were the perceived quality of the healthcare system, the city parents were from, the child’s age, being atheist or agnostic and referring to be in need of more information about vaccinations. The HLVA-it filter questions showed that people who had never paid attention to information material about vaccination or that were never invited to get a vaccine were more inclined to use alternative sources of information
