5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessments of global drivers of vaccine hesitancy in 2014—Looking beyond safety concerns

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Vaccine hesitancy has become the focus of growing attention and concern globally despite overwhelming evidence of the value of vaccines in preventing disease and saving the lives of millions of individuals every year.

          Measuring vaccine hesitancy and its determinants worldwide is important in order to understand the scope of the problem and for the development of evidence-based targeted strategies to reduce hesitancy.

          Two indicators to assess vaccine hesitancy were developed to capture its nature and scope at the national and subnational level to collect data in 2014: 1) The top 3 reasons for not accepting vaccines according to the national schedule in the past year and whether the response was opinion- or assessment-based and 2) Whether an assessment (or measurement) of the level of confidence in vaccination had taken place at national or subnational level in the previous 5 years.

          The most frequently cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy globally related to (1) the risk-benefit of vaccines, (2) knowledge and awareness issues, (3) religious, cultural, gender or socio-economic factors. Major issues were fear of side effects, distrust in vaccination and lack of information on immunization or immunization services. The analysis revealed that 29% of all countries had done an assessment of the level of confidence in their country, suggesting that vaccine confidence was an issue of importance.

          Monitoring vaccine hesitancy is critical because of its influence on the success of immunization programs. To our knowledge, the proposed indicators provide the first global snapshot of reasons driving vaccine hesitancy and depicting its widespread nature, as well as the extent of assessments conducted by countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Measuring vaccine hesitancy: The development of a survey tool.

          In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            How to deal with vaccine hesitancy?

            Based on the concerns about vaccine hesitancy and its impact on vaccine uptake rates and the performance of national immunization programmes, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy [1], carried out a review, and proposed a set of recommendations directed to the public health community, to WHO and its partners, and to the World Health Organization (WHO) member states. The final recommendations issued by SAGE in October 2014 fall into three categories: (1) those focused on the need to increase the understanding of vaccine hesitancy, its determinants and the rapidly changing challenges it entails; (2) those focused on dealing with the structures and organizational capacity to decrease hesitancy and increase acceptance of vaccines at the global, national and local levels; (3) and those focused on the sharing of lessons learnt and effective practices from various countries and settings as well as the development, validation and implementation of new tools to address hesitancy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Health-system resilience: reflections on the Ebola crisis in western Africa

              Disease outbreaks and catastrophes can affect countries at any time, causing substantial human suffering and deaths and economic losses. If health systems are ill-equipped to deal with such situations, the affected populations can be very vulnerable. 1 The current Ebola virus disease outbreak in western Africa highlights how an epidemic can proliferate rapidly and pose huge problems in the absence of a strong health system capable of a rapid and integrated response. The outbreak began in Guinea in December 2013 but soon spread into neighbouring Liberia and Sierra Leone. 2 In early August 2014, Ebola was declared an international public health emergency. 2 At the time the outbreak began, the capacity of the health systems in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone was limited. Several health-system functions that are generally considered essential were not performing well and this hampered the development of a suitable and timely response to the outbreak. There were inadequate numbers of qualified health workers. 3 Infrastructure, logistics, health information, surveillance, governance and drug supply systems were weak. The organization and management of health services was sub-optimal. Government health expenditure was low whereas private expenditure – mostly in the form of direct out-of-pocket payments for health services – was relatively high. 4 The last decade has seen increased external health-related aid to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. However, in the context of Millennium Development Goals 4, 5 and 6, most of this aid has been allocated to combat human immunodeficiency virus infection, malaria and tuberculosis, with much of the residual going to maternal and child health services. Therefore, relatively little external aid was left to support overall development of health systems. 5 This lack of balanced investment in the health systems contributes to the challenges of controlling the current Ebola outbreak. Weak health systems cannot be resilient. 6 – 8 A strong health system decreases a country’s vulnerability to health risks and ensures a high level of preparedness to mitigate the impact of any crises. Frequently, the response by governments and external partners to a health crisis posed by a communicable disease, such as Ebola, is to focus solely on reducing transmission and the effect of the disease. However, such a response is insufficient. Febrile individuals need to be screened for Ebola – even if most of them have fevers caused by other infections – and those found to be negative for Ebola still need to be treated rather than simply turned away. Even in the worst-affected areas, women still need antenatal services, safe delivery and postnatal care. Many people will travel to seek care for unrelated conditions in areas that they perceive to be Ebola-free, putting enormous strain on the health system in so-called “non-Ebola” areas. Routine services need to be assured while dealing with the direct effects of an epidemic. Otherwise, more people may die – of unrelated causes – from a general breakdown of health services than as a direct result of the epidemic. If this Ebola outbreak does not trigger substantial investments in health systems and adequate reforms in the worst-affected countries, pre-existing deficiencies in health systems will be exacerbated. The national governments, assisted by external partners, need to develop and implement strategies to make their health systems stronger and more resilient. Only then can they meet the essential health needs of their populations and develop strong disaster preparedness to address future emergencies. In the short-term, nongovernmental organizations, civil society and international organizations will have to bolster the national health systems, both to mitigate the direct consequences of the outbreak and to ensure that all essential health services are being delivered. However, this assistance should be carefully coordinated under the leadership of the national governments and follow development effectiveness principles. We expect health systems in the worst-affected areas to be left in a very weak state once the outbreak has ended. Hopefully, after the epidemic has ended, economic growth and government health spending will eventually rebound, with increased domestic investments in health systems. For the foreseeable future however, the negative economic impact on the affected countries 9 means that substantial external financing will be needed to build stronger national and subnational health systems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                1 March 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 3
                : e0172310
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [2 ]Department of Paediatrics, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre and Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Halifax, Canada
                Public Health England, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                • Conceptualization: MM PD.

                • Formal analysis: MM MC.

                • Methodology: LD.

                • Resources: LD.

                • Supervision: PD.

                • Validation: MM NM.

                • Visualization: MM.

                • Writing – original draft: MM MC.

                • Writing – review & editing: NM PD.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6800-760X
                Article
                PONE-D-16-28871
                10.1371/journal.pone.0172310
                5332020
                28249006
                e56e24b5-623e-4d79-965e-0071cbcd3267
                © 2017 Marti et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 July 2016
                : 2 February 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 1, Pages: 12
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccines
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Social Sciences
                Anthropology
                Cultural Anthropology
                Religion
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Religion
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Immune Response
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Immune Response
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Measles
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Sexual and Gender Issues
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Culture
                Custom metadata
                All underlying data will be publicly available on the WHO website ( http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/routine/reporting/reporting/en/) by mid-2017. Currently, this website contains the disclaimer that data from more recently included indicators, including the vaccine hesitancy indicators, in the JRF are not yet available on the web. All interested researchers can access the data from WHO by the same means the authors accessed them. All data used can be requested from the main author by writing an email to vpdata@ 123456who.int . For further information on the underlying WHO/UNICEF joint reporting form data, please see: www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/routine/reporting.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article