M Le Marechal1, L Fressard2, N Agrinier3, P Verger4, C Pulcini5. 1. Université de Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France. 2. Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France; ORS PACA, Observatoire régional de la santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Marseille, France. 3. Université de Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; INSERM, CIC-1433 Epidémiologie clinique, CHRU de Nancy, Nancy, France. 4. Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France; ORS PACA, Observatoire régional de la santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Marseille, France; INSERM, F-CRIN, I-Reivac (Innovative clinical research network in vaccinology), France. 5. Université de Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France; Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France; CHRU de Nancy, Service de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Nancy, France. Electronic address: celine.pulcini@univ-lorraine.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of vaccines that have been a subject of controversy in France. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in 2014 asked a representative national sample of GPs, randomly selected from the exhaustive database of health professionals in France, about their perceptions of the likelihood of serious adverse events potentially associated with six different vaccines: for two of them the association was based on some scientific evidence, whereas for the other four this is not the case. We performed a cluster analysis to construct a typology of GPs' perceptions about the likelihood of these potential six associations. Factors associated with certain clusters of interest were identified using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 1582 GPs participated in the questionnaire survey (1582/1712 GPs who agreed to participate, 92%). Cluster analysis identified four groups of GPs according to their susceptibility to vaccine controversies: 1) limited susceptibility to controversies (52%); 2) overall unsure, but rejected the association between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis (32%); 3) highly susceptible to controversies (11%); and 4) unsure (5%). We found that GPs who occasionally practised alternative medicine (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.65-4.45), and those who considered information provided by mass media as reliable (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.65-3.99) were more susceptible to controversies. CONCLUSIONS: GPs had different profiles of susceptibility to vaccination controversies, and most of their perceptions of these controversies were not based on scientific evidence.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of vaccines that have been a subject of controversy in France. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in 2014 asked a representative national sample of GPs, randomly selected from the exhaustive database of health professionals in France, about their perceptions of the likelihood of serious adverse events potentially associated with six different vaccines: for two of them the association was based on some scientific evidence, whereas for the other four this is not the case. We performed a cluster analysis to construct a typology of GPs' perceptions about the likelihood of these potential six associations. Factors associated with certain clusters of interest were identified using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 1582 GPs participated in the questionnaire survey (1582/1712 GPs who agreed to participate, 92%). Cluster analysis identified four groups of GPs according to their susceptibility to vaccine controversies: 1) limited susceptibility to controversies (52%); 2) overall unsure, but rejected the association between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis (32%); 3) highly susceptible to controversies (11%); and 4) unsure (5%). We found that GPs who occasionally practised alternative medicine (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.65-4.45), and those who considered information provided by mass media as reliable (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.65-3.99) were more susceptible to controversies. CONCLUSIONS: GPs had different profiles of susceptibility to vaccination controversies, and most of their perceptions of these controversies were not based on scientific evidence.