IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v67y2008i9p1382-1390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'Avoiding harm to others' considerations in relation to parental measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination discussions - An analysis of an online chat forum

Author

Listed:
  • Skea, Zoë C.
  • Entwistle, Vikki A.
  • Watt, Ian
  • Russell, Elizabeth

Abstract

Vaccination against contagious diseases is intended to benefit individuals and contribute to the eradication of such diseases from the population as a whole. The Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine is widely recommended for all children with the aim of protecting against measles, mumps, and rubella. However, within the UK, there has been significant controversy surrounding its safety. This paper presents findings from a UK study of discussions about MMR in an online chat forum for parents. We observed archived discussions (without posting any messages) and conducted a thematic analysis to explore in more detail how participants discussed particular topics. Most participants were female, had young children, lived in the UK. They had reached a range of decisions regarding MMR vaccination. This analysis focuses on discussions about 'avoiding harm to others,' which were important considerations for many of the participating parents. In the context of concerns about MMR safety, participants expressed a desire to both (a) protect their own child and (b) help protect others by contributing to herd immunity. Parents made a distinction between healthy and vulnerable children which had important implications for their views about who should bear the burden of vaccination. Some parents were quite critical of those who did not vaccinate healthy children, and urged them to do so on grounds of social responsibility. Our findings suggest that social scientists with an interest in vaccination practice should attend carefully to lay understandings of herd immunity as a public good and views about obligations to others in society. Policy makers, too, might consider giving more emphasis to herd immunity in vaccination promotional material, although attention should be paid to the ways in which parents distinguish between healthy and vulnerable children.

Suggested Citation

  • Skea, Zoë C. & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian & Russell, Elizabeth, 2008. "'Avoiding harm to others' considerations in relation to parental measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination discussions - An analysis of an online chat forum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1382-1390, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:67:y:2008:i:9:p:1382-1390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00362-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blaxter, Mildred, 1983. "The causes of disease : Women talking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 59-69, January.
    2. Poltorak, Mike & Leach, Melissa & Fairhead, James & Cassell, Jackie, 2005. "'MMR talk' and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 709-719, August.
    3. Blume, Stuart, 2006. "Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 628-642, February.
    4. Casiday, Rachel Elizabeth, 2007. "Children's health and the social theory of risk: Insights from the British measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) controversy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 1059-1070, September.
    5. Lauritzen, Sonja Olin, 2004. "Lay voices on allergic conditions in children: parents' narratives and the negotiation of a diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 1299-1308, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katrina Brown & Nick Sevdalis, 2011. "Lay Vaccination Narratives on the Web," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 707-709, September.
    2. Sobo, Elisa J., 2016. "What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 187-195.
    3. P. Kriwy, 2012. "Similarity of parents and physicians in the decision to vaccinate children against measles, mumps and rubella," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(2), pages 333-340, April.
    4. Verelst, Frederik & Willem, Lander & Kessels, Roselinde & Beutels, Philippe, 2018. "Individual decisions to vaccinate one's child or oneself: A discrete choice experiment rejecting free-riding motives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 106-116.
    5. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Manca, Terra, 2018. "“One of the greatest medical success stories:” Physicians and nurses’ small stories about vaccine knowledge and anxieties," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 182-189.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manca, Terra, 2018. "Fear, rationality, and risky others: A qualitative analysis of physicians' and nurses' accounts of popular vaccine narratives," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-125.
    2. Kay Fullenkamp, Natalie, 2021. "Playing Russian roulette with their kids: Experts' construction of ignorance in the California and Ohio measles outbreaks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    3. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    4. Peretti-Watel, Patrick & Raude, Jocelyn & Sagaon-Teyssier, Luis & Constant, Aymery & Verger, Pierre & Beck, François, 2014. "Attitudes toward vaccination and the H1N1 vaccine: Poor people's unfounded fears or legitimate concerns of the elite?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-18.
    5. Reich, Jennifer A., 2016. "Of natural bodies and antibodies: Parents' vaccine refusal and the dichotomies of natural and artificial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 103-110.
    6. Yaqub, Ohid & Nightingale, Paul, 2012. "Vaccine innovation, translational research and the management of knowledge accumulation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2143-2150.
    7. Geelen, Els & van Vliet, Hans & de Hoogh, Pieter & Horstman, Klasien, 2016. "Taming the fear of voice: Dilemmas in maintaining a high vaccination rate in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 12-19.
    8. Yaqub, Ohid & Castle-Clarke, Sophie & Sevdalis, Nick & Chataway, Joanna, 2014. "Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Kasstan, Ben, 2021. "“If a rabbi did say ‘you have to vaccinate,’ we wouldn't”: Unveiling the secular logics of religious exemption and opposition to vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    10. Andreassen, Hege K., 2011. "What does an e-mail address add? - Doing health and technology at home," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 521-528, February.
    11. Lawton, Julia & Peel, Elizabeth & Parry, Odette & Araoz, Gonzalo & Douglas, Margaret, 2005. "Lay perceptions of type 2 diabetes in Scotland: bringing health services back in," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1423-1435, April.
    12. Garthwaite, Kayleigh & Bambra, Clare, 2017. "“How the other half live”: Lay perspectives on health inequalities in an age of austerity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 268-275.
    13. Barker, Kristin K. & Galardi, Tasha R., 2011. "Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1351-1358, April.
    14. Selma Maria Abdalla Dias Barbosa, 2017. "Language Teacher Education: Identities Under Construction," European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 2, September.
    15. Ben Butlin & Keith Laws & Rebecca Read & Matthew D Broome & Shivani Sharma, 2019. "Concepts of mental disorders in the United Kingdom: Similarities and differences between the lay public and psychiatrists," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(6), pages 507-514, September.
    16. Gordana Tkalec & Iva Rosanda Žigo & Žarka Dolinara, 2017. "Film Reception by Means of New Media or How the Film Escaped from the Cinema," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 3, January -.
    17. Jamison, Amelia M. & Quinn, Sandra Crouse & Freimuth, Vicki S., 2019. "“You don't trust a government vaccine”: Narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and white adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 87-94.
    18. Ajit K. Dalal, 2000. "Living with a Chronic Disease: Healing and Psychological Adjustment in Indian Society," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 12(1), pages 67-81, March.
    19. Vulpe, Simona - Nicoleta & Rughinis, Cosima, 2021. "Social amplification of risk and “probable vaccine damage”:A typology of vaccination beliefs in 28 European countries," MPRA Paper 105949, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Kinderman, Peter & Setzu, Erika & Lobban, Fiona & Salmon, Peter, 2006. "Illness beliefs in schizophrenia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1900-1911, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:67:y:2008:i:9:p:1382-1390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.