Fanny Collange1,2, Anna Zaytseva1,2, Céline Pulcini3, Aurélie Bocquier1,2, Pierre Verger1,2. 1. Aix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France. 2. Southeastern Health Regional Observatory, ORS PACA, Marseille, France. 3. Université de Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC and, CHRU de Nancy, Service de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Nancy, France.
Abstract
Background: Given geographical disparities in vaccination coverage (VC) and the crucial role general practitioners (GPs) play in vaccination in France, we sought to: 1) determine the existence of geographical variations in GPs' perceptions of vaccines, their trust in information sources, and the frequency of their recommendations to patients by comparing data from southeast (SE), central-west (CW), northwest (NW), and the rest of France; and 2) identify individual and contextual factors associated with regional variations in GPs' recommendations. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study in 2014 collected data from a panel of 2586 French GPs in private practice: 3 specific regional samples and a fourth sample for the rest of France. We calculated a composite score summarizing GPs' vaccine recommendation frequency for 6 vaccine situations and used a five-step hierarchical linear regression to study the score's links with practice location and individual and contextual factors. Results: GPs' vaccine recommendation frequency score was highest in NW France and lowest in the SE. The low SE score was explained by GPs' greater doubts about vaccine utility and risks and lower trust in information sources. The high NW score was partially explained by greater adherence to guidelines by GPs there. The contextual factors studied did not explain regional differences. Conclusion: The geographical variations in GPs' vaccination-related attitudes and practices suggest that vaccine hesitancy among GPs differs in prevalence between regions. These variations coincide with north/south trends in population VC. Intervention strategies to restore confidence in vaccines should target GPs and must be adapted to each regional context.
Background: Given geographical disparities in vaccination coverage (VC) and the crucial role general practitioners (GPs) play in vaccination in France, we sought to: 1) determine the existence of geographical variations in GPs' perceptions of vaccines, their trust in information sources, and the frequency of their recommendations to patients by comparing data from southeast (SE), central-west (CW), northwest (NW), and the rest of France; and 2) identify individual and contextual factors associated with regional variations in GPs' recommendations. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study in 2014 collected data from a panel of 2586 French GPs in private practice: 3 specific regional samples and a fourth sample for the rest of France. We calculated a composite score summarizing GPs' vaccine recommendation frequency for 6 vaccine situations and used a five-step hierarchical linear regression to study the score's links with practice location and individual and contextual factors. Results: GPs' vaccine recommendation frequency score was highest in NW France and lowest in the SE. The low SE score was explained by GPs' greater doubts about vaccine utility and risks and lower trust in information sources. The high NW score was partially explained by greater adherence to guidelines by GPs there. The contextual factors studied did not explain regional differences. Conclusion: The geographical variations in GPs' vaccination-related attitudes and practices suggest that vaccine hesitancy among GPs differs in prevalence between regions. These variations coincide with north/south trends in population VC. Intervention strategies to restore confidence in vaccines should target GPs and must be adapted to each regional context.
Authors: Maria Grazia Mada Logrieco; Giuseppe Logrieco; Ilaria Nicolì; Francesca Pignatelli; Francesca Lionetti; Francesco Traglia; Maria Spinelli; Alberto Di Domenico; Mirco Fasolo Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Linda Cecilia Karlsson; Stephan Lewandowsky; Jan Antfolk; Paula Salo; Mikael Lindfelt; Tuula Oksanen; Mika Kivimäki; Anna Soveri Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ruud Andreas Fritz Verhees; Roy Snellings; Geert Jan Dinant; Johannes Andreas Knottnerus Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 3.452