4.5 Article

Vaccine hesitancy among general practitioners: evaluation and comparison of their immunisation practice for themselves, their patients and their children

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-016-2735-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To gain knowledge about vaccine hesitancy among general practitioners (GPs), we conducted a survey to compare their vaccination attitudes for themselves, their children and their patients. A questionnaire survey was sent to GPs working in private practice in the Rhne-Alpes region, France, between October 2013 and January 2014. GPs' immunisation practices for diphtheria-tetanus-poliomyelitis (DTP), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), pneumococcal, pertussis, hepatitis B (hepB), human papillomavirus (HPV), seasonal and H1N1 influenza and meningococcal C (menC) vaccines were considered. Divergence was defined by the presence of at least one different immunisation practice between their patients and their children. A total of 693 GPs answered the questionnaire. When considering all investigated vaccines, 45.7 % of divergence was found. Individually, divergence was highest for the newest and more controversial, i.e. HPV (11.8 %), hepB (13.1 %), menC (23.7 %) and pneumococcal (19.8 %) vaccines. Only 73.9 % of GPs declared that they recommended HPV vaccine for their daughters. After multivariate analysis, older age was associated with higher risk of divergence. According to the French 2012 recommendations, GPs were insufficiently immunised, with 88 % for DTP and 72 % for pertussis. GPs declared to recommend vaccination against DTP, pertussis and MMR for their patients and their children in more than 95 % of cases. The declared rates of recommendation were lower than 90 % for other vaccines. These results bring new insight about vaccine hesitancy. GPs have divergent immunisation attitudes toward their relatives and their patients, especially when considering the newest and most controversial vaccines, with HPV vaccine being the main focus of controversies.

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