Cape Town - Some parents, particularly from low and middle-income countries, may be less accepting of childhood vaccination owing to their experiences of social exclusion.
This is according to a Cochrane review of qualitative evidence that explored parents’ views and practices around routine childhood vaccination, entitled “Factors that influence parental and caregiver acceptance of routine childhood vaccination: Summary of a qualitative evidence synthesis”. It was recently published in the South African Medical Journal.
Researchers from the South African Medical Research Council, UCT, Stellenbosch University, UWC, University of Essex, University of Virginia, Brown University, among others, sought to synthesise qualitative studies exploring parents’ views and practices around routine childhood vaccination, and to develop an understanding of the factors that reduce parental acceptance.
While immunisation is one of the most effective healthcare interventions to prevent serious illness and death in young children, worldwide parents still question vaccines, and decide to delay or refuse vaccination for their children.
From screening 145 eligible studies up to June 2020, 27 were sampled for inclusion in the synthesis.
Based on the findings, authors developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccinations.
“The first concept, ‘neo-liberal logic’, suggests that many parents, particularly from high-income (backgrounds), understand healthcare decisions to be matters of individual risk, choice and responsibility.
“Yet for some parents, this perspective is experienced as in conflict with vaccination promotion messages, which emphasise population-level risk, community health and shared responsibility for public health,” the report stated.
The second concept, “social exclusion” in terms of economic, political and cultural factors, among others, speaks to parents, particularly from low-and middle-income countries.
“Parents who are socially excluded (may) be hesitant towards vaccination for their children because they distrust vaccines and those delivering them; as a form of resistance or owing to the time, costs (including opportunity costs) and distress it creates.”
The study recommends “a more nuanced and less biomedical approach may be needed”.
“Such an approach means moving away from attempting to ‘change attitudes’ through one-way information delivery. Rather, it involves developing dialogue-based approaches that prime for nuance, encourage respectful and bridge-building discussions and find ways to build on the potential positive dimensions of parental concerns,” the authors said.
Cape Times