4.5 Article

Pediatric provider vaccine hesitancy: An under-recognized obstacle to immunizing children

期刊

VACCINE
卷 33, 期 48, 页码 6629-6634

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.096

关键词

Vaccine attitudes; Vaccine hesitancy; Pediatric vaccine

资金

  1. Pfizer
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
  4. Astra Zeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe vaccine attitudes among pediatric healthcare providers attending immunization conferences. Study design: Attendees of 5 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)-sponsored vaccine conferences held between June and November 2013 anonymously completed a questionnaire assessing vaccine attitudes and practices prior to the opening of educational sessions. Pearson's chi-square tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze associations between vaccine attitudes, vaccine practices and provider characteristics. Results: 680 providers attending MP-sponsored vaccine conferences were included. 661/666 (99%) enrolled providers state they routinely recommend standard pediatric vaccines, yet, 30 (5%) state that they do not routinely recommend influenza and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. These providers expressed vaccine safety (87/680(13%)) and efficacy (21/680(31%)) concerns and stated belief in vaccine misperceptions: vaccine causes autism (34/668,5%), multiple vaccines at a single visit reduces vaccine efficacy (43/680, 6%) or overwhelms the immune system (63/680, 9%), and administering HPV vaccine will increase the likelihood of unprotected adolescent sexual activity (29/680, 4%). Six percent of providers who do not routinely recommend all pediatric vaccines correctly identified themselves as vaccine hesitant. Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy is under-recognized among pediatric providers attending MP-sponsored immunization conferences. Educational interventions tailored to address provider vaccine concerns are needed to improve provider vaccine confidence. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据