Jukka-Pekka Onnela1, Bruce E Landon2, Anna-Lea Kahn3, Danish Ahmed4, Harish Verma3, A James O'Malley5, Sunil Bahl4, Roland W Sutter3, Nicholas A Christakis6. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA. Electronic address: onnela@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, USA. 3. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. National Polio Surveillance Project, WHO, India. 5. The Department of Biomedical Data Science, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, USA. 6. Yale Institute for Network Science, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Eradication and control of childhood diseases through immunization can only work if parents allow their children to be vaccinated. To learn about social network factors associated with polio vaccine hesitancy, we investigated social and spatial clustering of households by their vaccine acceptance status in Malegaon, India, an area known for vaccine refusal and repeated detection of polio cases. METHODS: We interviewed family heads from 2462 households in 25 neighborhoods in July 2012 and constructed social networks based on advice seeking from other households. We restricted our main analyses to surveyed households for which we also had data on whether they accepted the polio vaccine for their eligible children or not. RESULTS: Data from 2452 households was retained and these households made 2012 nominations to 830 households. Vaccine-refusing households had fewer outgoing ties than vaccine-accepting households. After excluding 24 isolated households, vaccine-refusing households had 189% more nominations to other vaccine-refusing households (93% more in the largest component of the network) compared to vaccine-accepting households, revealing that vaccine-refusing households cluster in the social network. Since roughly half of all ties connect households within neighborhoods, vaccine-refusing clusters lie in spatially localized "pockets". CONCLUSIONS: The social (and spatial) clustering of vaccine-refusing households could be leveraged to tailor communication strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and community perceptions of immunization programs for polio and other vaccine-preventable diseases.
OBJECTIVES: Eradication and control of childhood diseases through immunization can only work if parents allow their children to be vaccinated. To learn about social network factors associated with polio vaccine hesitancy, we investigated social and spatial clustering of households by their vaccine acceptance status in Malegaon, India, an area known for vaccine refusal and repeated detection of polio cases. METHODS: We interviewed family heads from 2462 households in 25 neighborhoods in July 2012 and constructed social networks based on advice seeking from other households. We restricted our main analyses to surveyed households for which we also had data on whether they accepted the polio vaccine for their eligible children or not. RESULTS: Data from 2452 households was retained and these households made 2012 nominations to 830 households. Vaccine-refusing households had fewer outgoing ties than vaccine-accepting households. After excluding 24 isolated households, vaccine-refusing households had 189% more nominations to other vaccine-refusing households (93% more in the largest component of the network) compared to vaccine-accepting households, revealing that vaccine-refusing households cluster in the social network. Since roughly half of all ties connect households within neighborhoods, vaccine-refusing clusters lie in spatially localized "pockets". CONCLUSIONS: The social (and spatial) clustering of vaccine-refusing households could be leveraged to tailor communication strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and community perceptions of immunization programs for polio and other vaccine-preventable diseases.
Authors: Sae Takada; Viola Nyakato; Akihiro Nishi; A James O'Malley; Bernard Kakuhikire; Jessica M Perkins; David R Bangsberg; Nicholas A Christakis; Alexander C Tsai Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Sara Cooper; Bey-Marrié Schmidt; Evanson Z Sambala; Alison Swartz; Christopher J Colvin; Natalie Leon; Charles S Wiysonge Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Heidi J Larson; Alexandre de Figueiredo; Zhao Xiahong; William S Schulz; Pierre Verger; Iain G Johnston; Alex R Cook; Nick S Jones Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 8.143