Abstract
Background: Immunization is a necessary component of well child services within public health. Despite the documented effectiveness of vaccines, some parents choose to refuse or delay immunization for their children. Adherence to different beliefs has affected immunization coverage in one Regional Health Authority in Southwest Alberta.
Methods: This qualitative study involved exploratory, descriptive open-ended interviews with a sample of 47. The sample included people of Dutch ethnic background, Hutterites, and parents and practitioners who engage in alternative health beliefs and practices.
Results: Major findings include: 1) among the Dutch, most noted their decision to refuse to immunize was based on religious beliefs; 2) the Hutterites’ decision not to immunize was due to their experiences with adverse reactions but was further supported by their use of alternative health; and, 3) the alternative health group are more concerned with the safety of vaccines with regard to the short- and long-term effects on their children’s health.
Discussion: All three groups conveyed a common concern of child health and safety. Educational initiatives need to be implemented to allay parents’ fears. Community development activities with individuals of the groups included here who support immunization will increase acceptance of immunization.
Résumé
Contexte: Dans le domaine de la santé publique, l’immunisation est une composante essentielle des services à l’enfance. Bien que des recherches aient prouvé l’efficacité de la vaccination, certains parents refusent de faire vacciner leurs enfants ou tardent à le faire. Un bureau régional de la santé du Sud-Ouest de l’Alberta a ainsi constaté que des croyances diverses ont réduit la couverture vaccinale.
Méthode: Cette enquête qualitative a comporté des entretiens en profondeur avec 47 répondants. L’échantillon comprenait des personnes d’origine hollandaise, des membres de la communauté huttérite, ainsi que des parents et des médecins favorables aux médecines parallèles (médecines douces).
Résultats: L’enquête indique que la majorité des répondants d’origine hollandaise s’opposent à la vaccination en raison de leurs croyances religieuses. Les répondants de la communauté huttérite, pour leur part, sont réfractaires à la vaccination en raison de réactions fâcheuses dues aux vaccins, combinées à leur habitude de recourir aux médecines douces. Enfin, les répondants appartenant au groupe des parents et médecins qui font appel aux médecines douces s’inquiètent des effets à long et à moyen terme des vaccins sur la santé des enfants.
Interprétation: On constate que les trois groupes de répondants partagent des inquiétudes similaires concernant la santé et la sécurité des enfants. Il faudrait mettre en oeuvre des mesures éducatives pour apaiser les craintes des parents. En associant aux activités de développement communautaire des membres de ces groupes favorables à la vaccination, on favoriserait une plus grande adhésion à la vaccination
Footnotes
Funding for this study was provided by Alberta Health and Wellness, and Chinook Health Region. An earlier version of this paper was presented at: Rural and Remote Health: Exploring the Issues, Making the Connections, October 21–23, 2000, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Findings from this study were also presented at the Alberta Public Health Association Conference, June 21–22, 2001, Red Deer, AB.
References
- 1.Etkind P, Leh S, Macdonald P, Silva E, Peppe J. Pertussis outbreaks in groups claiming religious exemptions to vaccinations. Am J Diseases Children. 1992;146:173–76. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1992.02160140039017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Salmon DA, Haber M, Gangarosa EJ, Phillips L, Smith NJ, Chen RT. Health consequences of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization laws. JAMA. 1999;282(1):47–53. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Streefland P, Chowdhury AMR, Ramos-Jimenez P. Patterns of vaccination acceptance. Soc Sci Med. 1999;12:1705–16. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00239-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Can Commun Dis Rep. 1999.
- 5.Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/ publicat/vacprev/cov7-3/index.html
- 6.van Steenbergen JE, Langendam MW, Van de Kerkhof J, Ruijs W. Measles outbreak — Netherlands, April 1999-January 2000. JAMA. 2000;283:2385–86. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Campbell JB, Busse JW, Injeyan HS. Chiropractors and vaccination: A historical perspective. Pediatrics. 2000;105(4):43. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.4.e43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Netherland Reformed Congregation. The Psalter. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Malakoff D. Aluminum is put on trial as a vaccine booster. Science. 2000;288:1323–24. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5470.1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Delves PJ, Roitt IM. The immune system. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(1):37–49. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200007063430107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Plotkin S. Letters. JAMA. 2000;283:2104–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.16.2104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Halsey N. Letters. JAMA. 2000;283:2105. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.16.2105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]