Vaccine hesitancy has been defined as a continuum of attitudes, ranging from accepting vaccines with doubts to rejecting them. For good reasons, the topic has featured regularly on this blog, e.g.:
- Anthroposophic medicine and vaccine hesitancy: are there links?
- Endorsement of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: findings from Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France
- Echo chambers of vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- Vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- How to reduce vaccination hesitancy?
- Reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of childhood vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- The American Medical Association take a stand against chiropractors, naturopaths, or homeopaths granting medical exemptions to vaccines
- Attitudes of Vaccination-Hesitant Parents Towards So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM)
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
This new study aimed to explore the heterogeneity of a childhood-vaccine-hesitant group by using a person-oriented approach, i.e. latent profile analysis.
A non-representative cross-sectional sample of vaccine-hesitant Slovenians (N = 421, Mage = 35.21, 82.9% women) was used to identify differences based on their
- reliance on personal research (“self” researching instead of relying on science),
- over-confidence in knowledge,
- endorsement of conspiracy theories,
- complementary and alternative medicine,
- trust in the healthcare system.
The analysis revealed three profiles of vaccine-hesitant individuals. The most hesitant profile—vaccine rejecting—expressed the greatest reliance on personal research, expressed the highest endorsement of conspiracy theories and complementary and alternative medicine, showed moderate overconfidence in their knowledge, and expressed the highest levels of distrust in the healthcare system. Furthermore, the researchers found differences in sociodemographic structure and noted that the identified profiles differed in their attitudes regarding MMR, HPV, and Seasonal Influenza vaccinations.
The authors concluded as follows: our findings not only further confirm the heterogeneous nature of vaccine-hesitant groups but also offer critical insights for public health interventions. By acknowledging the existence of distinct profiles within the vaccine-hesitant population, strategies can be tailored to address the nuanced beliefs and attitudes of these subgroups more effectively.
- Skeptics who already express a certain level of trust in healthcare, may be most receptive to messages from medical professionals. Given that skeptics are typically older, higher-educated men, interventions could focus on leveraging their existing trust in healthcare professionals and providing detailed, evidence-based information to address their specific concerns.
- Self-directed researchers, who are characterized by high endorsement of CAM and conspiracy theories and moderate over-confidence, could benefit from interventions involving trusted community figures or CAM medicine experts who can bridge the gap between traditional and CAM perspectives. In addition, reaching out to younger women in this group through online platforms and providing credible information that counteracts misinformation could be effective.
- Conventionalists, who have the highest trust in the healthcare system and tend to include more educated individuals with a left-leaning political orientation, may respond well to public health messages that emphasize the collective benefits of vaccination. Campaigns could focus on reinforcing their positive views on the efficacy, safety, and importance of vaccines while leveraging their trust in physicians and public health institutions.
The effectiveness of targeted interventions for each specific subgroup could then also be examined, employing insights from the present study. For instance, tailored communication strategies could be tested to determine which messages and messengers are the most effective in regard to changing attitudes and behaviors within each profile.
14 Responses to Vaccine Hesitancy: A Study of a Childhood-Vaccine-Hesitant Population
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Stanley Plotkin is backtracking:
https://icandecide.org/press-release/stanley-plotkin-worlds-leading-vaccinologist-and-his-compatriots-have-just-capitulated-regarding-the-lack-of-vaccine-safety/
[Quote]
““prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
[End of quote]
When ICAN publishes a message, you can put it in the trash can.
The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) is one of the main anti-vaccination groups in the United States. Founded in 2016 by Del Bigtree, it spreads misinformation about the risks of vaccines and contributes to vaccine hesitancy,[1][2][3] which has been identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.[4][5] Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_Consent_Action_Network
@Old Bob
No, he is not. This is just another piece of excrement from an antivaxx moron who doesn’t understand science and on top of that lies to promulgate the myth that vaccines are unsafe.
And of course everyone with two functioning brain cells would immediately recognize this ICAN page for the webshite that it is: a huge caption, liberal use of emotionally charged language, unsubstantiated accusations and lies, and attempts to put virtually every sentence in the original report in a bad light.
And, quite predictable, other antivaxx loons – you included – lap up this crap like there’s no tomorrow.
From the deposition here:
https://archive.org/details/2015-831539-DM
[quote: from 03:17:00]
Siri, “Is five days long enough to detect adverse reactions after vaccination?
Plotkin, “No, but they would be reported separately as observed in the clinic”
(Siri sticks to the report)
“Is five days long enough to detect an autoimmune issue after 5 days?”
“It does not specifically say that, No.”
…
Siri, “Does it mention any control group?”
Plotkin, “[waffle]”
“But there is no control group, correct?”
“No”
…
[end quote]
@Old Bob
Please stop posting crap like this. The extreme stupidity is causing burns in my screen and pain in my head.
The people you are brainlessly parroting are themselves antivaxx imbeciles without medical or scientific education, who nevertheless think that they know better than all those thousands of well-trained immunology experts how vaccines should be tested. They also claim that those experts admitted that no proper testing has taken place. This is untrue.
Vaccines are among the most thoroughly tested and evaluated interventions, and have saved more lives than any other medical intervention. All vaccines on the market are extremely safe, and most are quite effective.
We so called “antivaxxers”, many of whom are vaccine injured think otherwise:
https://ladycasey.substack.com/p/scientific-studies-on-vaccine-injuries
There you go, Bob. Fixed it for you.
Given the nocebo effect and the ability of antivax loons to link anything to vaccines, it should come as no surprise that these supposed injuries have failed to manifest in trials.
The eternal collision of evidence and ideology.
@Old BoB
Who is KC? I tell you:
And of course KC only links studies and reports that reinforce her biased ignorance, and “prove” the alleged harmfulness of mRNA vaccines, while also selectively quoting from the studies. I bet KC never read the studies, let alone understand anything from them, if she did read anything.
@Old Bob
Please allow me to once again explain why you are once again wrong, and are merely parroting other people who are also quite wrong – because obviously you are way too stupid to come to this conclusion yourself, even though it has been explained to you many, many times before.
No, those people are NOT ‘vaccine injured’. They are for the most part perfectly ordinary people who were unlucky enough to develop a particular condition or other – conditions that are not uncommon in the general population, vaccinated or not.
The problem is that antivaxx imbeciles attribute these conditions to vaccination. They simply claim “problem arose AFTER vaccination = problem was CAUSED BY vaccination“. They will not accept any other explanation except ‘VaccinesDidIt!’, even though those antivaxx imbeciles know nothing of medicine and science in general, and epidemiological statistics(*) in particular. Yet they think they know more about all sorts of disease causes than the actual trained experts such as doctors.
This person you are quoting is one of those antivaxx loons – and even admits so much:
“I’m not a scientific researcher, data analyst, or medical professional. ..”
And sure enough, the ‘studies’ she comes up with are without exception long-debunked crap from other antivaxx loons such as Peter Doshi and the epitome of arrogant antivaxx stupidity, Steve Kirsch.
*: A real-life example: A few years after the HPV vaccine was introduced for girls age 13, antivaxx imbeciles somehow got it into their head that the vaccine caused chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a not uncommon condition among adolescents. They collected a hundred or so case reports as ‘evidence’, and a scare campaign was launched to dissuade girls from taking this vaccine, complete with a ‘documentary’ and a Danish GP (Louise Brinth) who in fact helped collect those cases. The effects were clear: the uptake of the HPV vaccine almost immediately halved, from over 70% to less than 35% of girls. ALL WITHOUT ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT THE VACCINE CAUSED CFS, (or any other condition, for that matter, e.g. premature ovarian failure, pancreatitis, or a host of other diseases attributed to the vaccine).
Dutch research later confirmed that the HPV vaccine did not cause any of the claimed conditions. How could these researchers be so certain? Simple: close to 50%of girls in the Netherlands took the HPV vaccine, and the other 50% did not. They closely surveyed the health of one annual cohort (~40,000 vaccinated, ~40,000 unvaccinated) for several years. The outcome? No difference whatsoever. In both groups, about 1 girl in 200 had developed CFS symptoms during the research period. There were also no differences wrt other conditions. End of story, there’s nothing wrong with the HPV vaccine – or any other vaccine out there, because similar research has been carried out for many other vaccines.
Tell that to Biden. He had 6 doses and still caught covid.
@Old Bob
Silly Bob, obviously Uncle Joe wasn’t wearing his protective mask.
@Old Bob
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is a difference between a vaccine being not 100% effective and a vaccine being harmful, a.k.a. ‘vaccine injury’.
In fact, not a single vaccine is 100% effective. But by the same token, it is extremely rare for a vaccine to be harmful.
So to put it gently, in respectful words that no doubt will resonate with you: you are an antivaxx imbecile.
@John
🙂
@RichardRasker
Join us imbeciles and enjoy zero covid + good health + happiness + the love of others 🙂
@Antediluvian Bob
Your video segment taken out of context proves what exactly?
Exactly! You play pigeon chess. You knock over all the pieces, poop on the board and strut around like you’ve won. Guru guru guru! 😀
FYI, Aaron Siri gets paid very well by ICAN for his second-rate theater in court.