Maite Cruz Piqueras1, Ainhoa Rodríguez García de Cortazar2, Joaquín Hortal Carmona3, Javier Padilla Bernáldez4. 1. Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Granada, España. Electronic address: maiteazul.cruz@gmail.com. 2. Observatorio Infancia de Andalucía, Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Granada, España. 3. Hospital de Alta Resolución de Guadix (APS Hospital de Poniente), Granada, España. 4. Centro de Salud Isabel II, Parla, Madrid, España; Colectivo Silesia, Madrid, España.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse and understand vaccination hesitancy discourses, particularly those of people who have decided not to vaccinate their sons and daughters. METHODS: Qualitative study of five individual interviews and two focus groups with people who chose not to vaccinate their children in the province of Granada (Spain). RESULTS: Mothers and fathers manifest a system of health beliefs different to the biomedical paradigm. From an ethical point of view, they justify their position based on the right to autonomy and responsibility for their decisions. Alleged specific reasons: they doubt administration of several vaccines simultaneously at an early age in a systematic way and without individualising each case; they fear adverse effects and do not understand the variations of the vaccination schedule. CONCLUSIONS: These vaccination hesitancy discourses respond to the individual vs collective conflict; parents defend their right to bring up their children without any interference from the state and focus their responsibility on the individual welfare of their sons and daughters, regardless of the consequences that their actions might have on the collective. In their management of risks, they consider those derived from vaccination more relevant than the individual or collective consequences of not doing so. The vaccines generating most doubts are the more controversial ones within the scientific world. Transparency in communication of adverse effects; authorities respect for other health/disease concepts; banishment of the term "anti-vaccines" from the media and scientific vocabulary, and developing spaces for dialogue are bridges to be built.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse and understand vaccination hesitancy discourses, particularly those of people who have decided not to vaccinate their sons and daughters. METHODS: Qualitative study of five individual interviews and two focus groups with people who chose not to vaccinate their children in the province of Granada (Spain). RESULTS: Mothers and fathers manifest a system of health beliefs different to the biomedical paradigm. From an ethical point of view, they justify their position based on the right to autonomy and responsibility for their decisions. Alleged specific reasons: they doubt administration of several vaccines simultaneously at an early age in a systematic way and without individualising each case; they fear adverse effects and do not understand the variations of the vaccination schedule. CONCLUSIONS: These vaccination hesitancy discourses respond to the individual vs collective conflict; parents defend their right to bring up their children without any interference from the state and focus their responsibility on the individual welfare of their sons and daughters, regardless of the consequences that their actions might have on the collective. In their management of risks, they consider those derived from vaccination more relevant than the individual or collective consequences of not doing so. The vaccines generating most doubts are the more controversial ones within the scientific world. Transparency in communication of adverse effects; authorities respect for other health/disease concepts; banishment of the term "anti-vaccines" from the media and scientific vocabulary, and developing spaces for dialogue are bridges to be built.