Search results

To support vaccine decision-making, a growing number of parents use online communities to obtain informational and emotional support; however, relatively high information heterogeneity and polarization in the online environment make it challenging for parents to make informed vaccine decisions based on the systematic processing of conflicting information. In this context, this study aims to focus on the relationship between parents’ knowledge integration and rational and experiential decision-making and the mediating effect of anxiety on this relationship.

A theoretical model incorporating the direct and indirect effects of knowledge integration and anxiety on decision-making is proposed and tested through partial least squares structural equation modeling with survey data from 223 parents.

Knowledge integration negatively affects anxiety. Knowledge integration has a direct positive effect on rational decision-making and an indirect negative effect on experiential decision-making.

These insights into the key role of knowledge integration in parental vaccine decision-making under information heterogeneity and polarization provide support for practical strategies to encourage knowledge integration and alleviate anxiety in online communities.

This study underscores the importance of knowledge integration in vaccine decision-making under information heterogeneity and polarization and reveals distinct mechanisms underlying the effects of knowledge integration on decision-making dominated by rational and experiential modes. The findings also provide insights into the information processing mechanisms underlying the knowledge integration of subjects with insufficient prior knowledge in the non-organizational context.

Because health misinformation pertaining to COVID-19 is a serious threat to public health, the purpose of this study is to develop a framework to guide an online intervention into some of the drivers of health misinformation online. This framework can be iterated upon through the use of design-based research to continue to develop further interventions as needed.

Using design-based research methods, in this paper, the authors develop a theoretical framework for addressing COVID-19 misinformation. Using a heuristic analysis of research on vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, the authors propose a framework for education interventions that use the narrative effect of transportation as a means to increase knowledge of the drivers of misinformation online.

This heuristic analysis determined that a key element of narrative transportation includes orientation towards particular audiences. Research indicates that mothers are the most significant household decision-makers with respect to vaccines and family health in general; the authors suggest narrative interventions should be tailored specifically to meet their interests and tastes, and that this may be different for mothers of different backgrounds and cultural communities.

While there is a significant body of literature on vaccine hesitancy and vaccine misinformation, more research is needed that helps people understand the ways in which misinformation works upon social media users. The framework developed in this research guided the development of an education intervention meant to facilitate this understanding.

Much of the discussion surrounding the antivaccine movement focuses on the decision of parents to not vaccinate their children and the resulting danger posed to others. However, the primary risk is borne by the child left unvaccinated. Although living in a developed country with high vaccination rates provides a certain amount of protection through population immunity, the unvaccinated child is still exposed to a considerably greater risk of preventable diseases than one who is vaccinated. I explore the tension between parental choice and the child’s right to be free of preventable diseases. The chapter’s goal is twofold: to advocate for moving from a dyadic framework – considering the interests of the parents against those of the state – to a triadic one, in which the interests of the child are given as much weight as those of the parent and the state; and to discuss which protections are available, and how they can be improved. Specific legal tools available to protect that child are examined, including tort liability of the parents to the child, whether and to what degree criminal law has a role, under what circumstances parental choice should be overridden, and the role of school immunization requirements in protecting the individual child.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework for understanding the identity politics associated with parental hesitancy and refusal of vaccines for their children (“vaccine hesitancy or refusal” or “VHR”). Understanding these identity politics helps policymakers to craft appropriate communication interventions that do not make the problem worse.

Social identity theory is a way of understanding how group identities develop around the lifestyle practices that often include refusal to vaccinate, and how this group identity is accentuated by conflict with the pro-vaccinating societal mainstream. This paper critically appraises existing studies of VHR to explore this groupness across many different contexts.

Groupness is evident across many different contexts. There are also key group characteristics: preference for natural birth and breastfeeding, nature as a concept and use of complementary and alternative medicine.

The paper is speculative and theoretical, using existing sources. Future studies will need to demonstrate empirically with new data. However, this theoretical approach sets up a new research agenda.

These findings can help governments and policymakers minimise social conflict that risks further polarising vaccine conversations and wedging parents on the fence.

This paper argues that the decision to vaccinate or not is an inherently social one, not a matter of pure individual rationality. This is a novel approach to engaging with what is often characterised and studied as an individual decision.

The purpose of this research is to investigate how parents and caregivers describe their concerns about the HPV vaccine for their children on open Internet websites. The study examines what the discourse among parents reveals about their concerns regarding the HPV vaccine.

Our exploratory study utilized a grounded theory approach as a method of collecting data and simultaneously formulating research questions based on emerging themes from the data. We used purposeful sampling to select sets of comments posted on websites that provided news, scientific information, or parental support regarding HPV and its vaccine.

Findings suggest support for Bond and Nolan’s (2011) theory that familiarity with a disease is central to parents’ assessment of risk, and that dread of a serious disease such as cervical cancer is weaker than dread of unknown possible side effects in parents’ motivation to give or withhold the vaccine for their children.

Research limitations include our usage of a purposeful convenience sample of websites. The limitation of this sampling technique is that the comments made by website “users” and used in the analysis may not be representative of the wider population, and may include Americans as well as non-Americans.

Our research fills an important gap in the literature by looking at the ways in which parents share their concerns about the HPV vaccine on Internet websites as they consider whether to reject, delay, or consent to the vaccine.

The World Health Organization identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the ten threats to global health in 2019. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the implications and factors affecting parental decision on childhood immunisation in Malaysia.

This paper reviews literature on vaccine hesitancy and evaluation of factors affecting parental decision on childhood immunisation in Malaysia.

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing public health concern in Malaysia with factors such as influence of Internet and social media, personal choice and individual right, conspiracy theory, religious reasons and alternative medicine as among the influencing dynamics. An urban, educated demography operating within a postmodern medical paradigm compounds the diminishing value of vaccines.

This paper provides a comprehensive examination of vaccine hesitancy in Malaysia. Critical appraisal on personal choice over societal responsibility within an Asian/Muslim collectivist society has not been discussed in previous studies. The acceptance of homeopathy as an Islamic medicine alternative is peculiar to multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Malaysia.

This paper aims to present an analysis of the various dimensions of naturalness that shape the consumption practices of parents with young children.

The study builds on semi-structured interviews with 17 mothers and fathers focusing on parental decision-making in everyday consumption from pregnancy to the first years of the child’s life.

Naturalness is a tool allowing parents to navigate in a world of risks and part of an everyday consumption practice that constructs and maintains children as vulnerable and parents as responsible. Parents perceive naturalness as something with three dimensions: familiarity, purity and culture. These three dimensions lead to different parental practices around consumption.

The analysis contributes to the authors’ understanding of parenting, childhood, risk, safety and consumption by showing how and why parents of young children construct naturalness as a three-dimensional ideal in their consumption practices.

To understand how parents make the decision to implant their deaf young children with cochlear implants, focusing specifically on the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma.

I conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with the hearing parents or parent of children with cochlear implants. In all but two families I interviewed the primary caretaker which in all cases was a mother. In the remaining two interviews, I interviewed both parents together. Because of the relative scarcity of families with children with cochlear implants, and the difficulty in connecting with these families, I used a convenience sample, and I did not stratify it in any way. The only requirement for parents to be interviewed is that they had at least one deaf child who had been implanted with at least one cochlear implant. Although this is a small sample, the findings are transferable to other families with the same sociodemographic characteristics as those in my study.

Parents in the study focused on three key concepts: normality, risk analysis, and being a good parent. Dispositional factors such as the need to be “normal” and the desire for material success for one's children appeared to moderate the cost-benefit calculus.

This interview project concentrated on hearing families who had implanted their deaf children with cochlear implants; it does not include culturally Deaf parents who choose to use American Sign Language (ASL) with their Deaf children. Understanding how Deaf families understand the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma would shed light on how a distinctly “abnormal” group (by a statistical conception of normal) – ASL-using Deaf people-explain normality in the face of using a non-typical communication method. One can learn a lot by studying the absence of a phenomena, in this case, not implanting children with cochlear implants. It is possible that the existential threat felt by some Deaf people, specifically the demographic problem presented by cochlear implants, led Deaf educators or parents to resist being the subject of research.

Overwhelmingly the sample was female, and white. Only two participants were male, and none of the participants were non-white. The lack of diversity in the sample does not necessarily reflect a lack of diversity of children receiving cochlear implants. Medicaid, which disproportionately covers families of color, covers cochlear implants in most cases, so low SES/racial intersectionality should not have affected the lack of diversity in the sample. However, the oral schools are all private pay, with few scholarships available, so low SES/racial intersectionality in the sampling universe (all children who attend oral schools), may have played a part in the lack of racial diversity within the sample.

Parents in this study were very specific about the fact that they believed cochlear implants would lead to academic, professional, and personal success. They weaved narratives of normality, medicalization, and stigma through their stories. Normality is an important lens from which to see stories about disability and ability, as well as medical correction. As medical science continues to advance, more and more conditions will become medicalized, leading to more and more people taking advanced medical treatments to address problems that were previously considered “problems with living” that are now considered “medical problems” that can be treated with advanced science.

This chapter's contribution to the sociological cochlear implant literature is it's weaving of narratives about normality, stigma, and medicalization into parental stories about the cochlear implant decision-making process. Most literature about the cochlear implant decision-making process focus on cost-benefit analysis, and logical decision-making processes, whereas this paper focuses on decision-making factors stemming from bias, emotions, and values.

Effectiveness of message tactics in social marketing projects often varies across groups of individuals, which suggests the importance of tailoring communication approaches to maximize the success of promotional strategies. This study aims to contribute in this direction by using an innovative approach to promote targeted human papillomavirus vaccination, applying conjoint analysis to understand parental preferences for social media content features.

An online purpose-built quantitative survey was administered to a group of parents meeting eligibility criteria. The survey questions were designed based on inputs from formative qualitative research conducted in a previous phase of the study.

In the overall sample of 285 parents, responses show that image was the most important feature of social media posts overall, followed by source and text. Cluster analysis identified eight segments in the sample based on parental preferences for content features. Significant differences across segments were identified in terms of need for cognition, vaccine hesitancy, parental gender, concerns around side effects, trust in medical providers, information sharing behaviors on social media and information seeking online.

The application of conjoint analysis to promotional content allows to assess which features of the content are most important in persuading different individuals and provide insights on how people process the information, ultimately to inform targeted promotion based on preferences. Conjoint analysis has been widely used in consumer research to explore audience preferences for products or services, but only a few applications of conjoint analysis to the design and testing of promotional content are found in the literature.

Public health programs facilitate access to resources that not only provide individuals’ options but also often foreclose individual preference through prescriptive requirements. This chapter takes two disparate cases from public health – vaccines and family planning –that reveal patterns of inequality in who has access to individual choice and who requires state support to exercise choice. Looking specifically at dynamics of funding and compulsion, this chapter elucidates how reliance on the rhetoric of individual choice as an expression of freedom rewards those with the greatest access to resources and fails to make sure that all members of the community have the resources to shape their own outcomes or to make sure collective health is protected.