Influenza vaccine intake is influenced by so-called alternative medicine and its practitioners

Influenza poses a major health challenge due to its variability, pandemic potential and absence of an effective cure. These fact render prevention crucial. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the link between influenza vaccination and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) practices among Palestinian adults, along with factors influencing vaccination rates. It also evaluated participants’ attitudes towards SCAM and beliefs regarding herbal and vitamin use for influenza management.

The study was carried out between 18/02/2024 and 23/04/2024. A self-administered online questionnaire was shared through social media and personal communication. This questionnaire was aimed at all adults aged 18 and above. Both descriptive and regression analyses were performed.

The study included 363 participants, revealing an influenza vaccination rate of only 9%. A significant correlation was found between vaccination status and the use of:

• manipulative therapies,
• body-based methods,
• mind-body medicine.

No significant relationship was noted with herbal remedies or alternative medical systems.

Higher income and better health status were linked to increased vaccination likelihood (P-value<0.05), indicating a need for targeted public health campaigns. Although 63% of participants were familiar with SCAM, 34% had never used it for influenza, highlighting a knowledge gap. Popular natural remedies like Vitamin C, ginger, and honey reflect a trend toward preventive healthcare despite concerns over costs and skepticism about SCAM’s effectiveness.

The authors concluded that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by multiple factors, including context and types of SCAM use. Cultural beliefs and personal health philosophies significantly shape attitudes toward SCAM use and vaccination.

On this blog, we have discussed dozens of papers showing a link between various forms of SCAM and uptake of various form of vaccinations (please use the search fascility, if you want to know the details). We have seen that consumers from all parts of the world are less likely to vaccinate, if they are enthusiastic about SCAM. The reasons for this association, and the role of SCAM practitioners in it seem fairly clear:

• SCAM practitioners tend to advise against vaccination;
• SCAM practitioners tend to claim that their own treatments protect against infections;
• SCAM practitioners tend to stress the risks of vaccinations;
• SCAM practitioners tend to claim that vaccinations are not effective;
• SCAM practitioners tend learn these fallacies during their training;
• SCAM practitioners tend to get bombarded with such messages in their ‘professional’ literature;
• Many consumers believe the nonsense they hear from SCAM practitioners, particularly if they share their anti-establishment/science mind-set.

The damage caused in this way by SCAM practitioners is untold. Is it not time to educate SCAM practitioners properly in order to prevent the damage they do to public health?