Search

To achieve the full benefits of vaccination, it is key to understand the underlying causes of low vaccination by researching the barriers to vaccination at a local level. This systematic literature review aims to identify the reasons given by community members for the non-vaccination and under-vaccination of children and adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa. PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, African Index Medicus, and African Journals Online databases were searched to identify articles published between 2010 and 2020. A total of 37 articles were included. As 17 studies did not report the reasons for non-vaccination and under-vaccination separately, we considered these two outcomes as "incomplete vaccination". The most common reasons for incomplete vaccination were related to caregiver's time constraints, lack of knowledge regarding vaccination, the unavailability of vaccines/personnel in healthcare facilities, missed opportunities for vaccination, caregiver's fear of minor side effects, poor access to vaccination services, and caregiver's vaccination beliefs.

Purpose: Vaccine hesitancy is common in France, including among general practitioners (GPs).  We aimed to understand vaccine hesitant GPs' views towards vaccines. Method : We conducted in-depth interviews that were thematically analysed. Result: We found that, facilitated by health scandals and vaccine controversies-that according to participants were not effectively handled by health authorities-the implicit contract existing between health authorities and GPs has been ruptured. This contract implies that health authorities support GPs in making vaccine recommendations by addressing GPs' own concerns, providing them with adequate and up-to-date information and advice, and involving them in vaccine decision-making. In turn, GPs encourage vaccination to reach vaccine coverage targets. Conclusion: The rupture of this implicit contract has led to a breach in trust in the health authorities and the vaccines that they recommend.

Objectives: To estimate geographical variations of child immunisation at the regional level in Senegal, to identify individual and contextual factors that could explain these regional discrepancies, and to measure their effects., Methods: Data come from the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Senegalese Demographic and Health Survey, a national survey targeting women aged 15-49, with a questionnaire focusing on health and reproductive issues including their children's immunisation status. We restricted the analysis to children aged 12-23 months (n = 4955) and conducted a multilevel logistic regression to assess individual and contextual factors associated with complete immunisation coverage., Results: The complete immunisation coverage rate of children was estimated at 68% and ranged from 41% in the region of Kedougou to 83% in the region of Dakar. The inter-regional variance was significantly different from zero (P = 0.006) in the empty multilevel model. It decreased by more than half (57 %) after adjusting for individual factors but remained significantly different from zero (P = 0.010). Regional variations of complete immunisation rates drastically decreased and were no longer statistically significant (P = 0.343) after adjusting for the following regional factors: population density, density of hospitals, literacy rate and proportion of health facilities with an antenatal care service., Conclusions: Regarding health policies designed to improve childhood immunisation and to reduce related inequalities, our results highlight the need to take into account both individual and contextual factors, with a focus on rural and deprived areas where children are at higher risk of incomplete immunisation., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The World Health Organization recommends recording vaccination status according to maternal recall in countries where administrative reporting systems are insufficiently reliable, as maternal recall in developing countries has been shown to be quite reliable compared with data from vaccination cards. This study aimed to investigate childhood vaccination coverage and its determinants according to the mothers' presentation of vaccination cards., Methods: The data come from the 2017 Senegalese Demographic and Health Survey, a nationally representative household survey of women aged 15-49 years, with a questionnaire focusing on children's health. This analysis was restricted to children aged 12-35 months (n = 4032) and it assessed vaccination coverage and associated sociodemographic factors with weighted multivariate logistic regressions. Stratified multivariate logistic regressions were also performed to investigate factors associated with routine childhood immunization uptake of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, recommended for administration shortly after birth, as well as of the vaccines against yellow fever and measles (recommended at 9 months)., Results: Comparison of vaccination coverage estimates according to the vaccination card or parental recall resulted in a 5-10% difference in estimated coverage for the BCG, pentavalent, measles, and yellow fever vaccines, but a huge difference for the polio vaccine (93.0% with the card, 32.0% without it). Presentation of the vaccination card was correlated with mothers' attendance at health facilities (suggesting it serves as a concrete manifestation of a bond between mothers and the healthcare system) and their region of residence, but it was not correlated with usually strong predictors of childhood vaccination, such as maternal education level. Factors associated with vaccinations differed depending on whether they were administered shortly after birth or later on., Conclusions: Maternal recall was found to be quite reliable except for oral polio vaccination, which raises the possibility that complete immunization coverage rates could have been significantly underestimated due to potential confusion between injection and vaccination. Considering the ability to present vaccination cards as the materialization of a bond with the healthcare system, the decision path leading to vaccination among those who lack such a bond appears longer and more likely to be driven by supply-side effects.

Europe is increasingly described as the region in the world with the least confidence in vaccination, and particularly in the safety of vaccines. The aim of this systematic literature review was to gather and summarise all peer-reviewed and grey literature published about determinants of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine hesitancy in Europe. Ten thematic categories were identified across the 103 articles which were included in the review. Participants from European studies most commonly reported issues with the quantity and quality of information available about HPV vaccination; followed by concerns about potential side effects of the vaccine; and mistrust of health authorities, healthcare workers, and new vaccines. Comparative analyses indicated that confidence determinants differed by country and population groups. This evidence supports the need to develop context-specific interventions to improve confidence in HPV vaccination and design community engagement strategies aiming to build public trust.

Introduction: While the scientific consensus on the benefits of vaccination is unambiguous, there is a growing proportion of the population that is skeptical about vaccination. The idea that vaccination programs are losing their momentum concerns public health agencies throughout the world. Many studies assessing determinants of vaccine acceptance have been published in the last decade., Areas Covered: In this article, we review the existing qualitative literature on parents' attitudes toward childhood vaccination. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on the views, decision-making, or experiences of caregivers (hereafter, referred to as 'parents') regarding vaccinations for young children; (2) used qualitative methods for both data and data analysis; (3) were conducted in countries that ranked 'very high' on the 2016 United Nations Human Development Index; and (4) had been peer-reviewed. Twenty-two (22) studies met our inclusion criteria and were reviewed, using the socio-ecological model as a conceptual framework., Expert Commentary: Parental vaccination decisions are complex and multi-dimensional. Experiences, emotions, routine ways of thinking, information sources, peers/family, risk perceptions, and trust, among other factors, inform parents' attitudes and decision-making processes. Further research is needed in order to design evidence-informed responses to vaccine hesitancy appropriate to the setting, context, and hesitant subgroups.

Background: Vaccination against seasonal influenza (SIV) is recommended for patients with diabetes, but their vaccination coverage is unsatisfactory in France and elsewhere. This qualitative survey of people with diabetes sought to explore 1) the extent to which SIV-related behaviour is more or less automatic; 2) reasons they choose/reject SIV; 3) their trust/distrust in authorities, science, and medicine., Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of 19 adults with diabetes in 2014. We recruited them through physicians or patient associations and implemented an analysis of thematic content., Results: Eight patients were vaccinated against flu in the preceding flu season and 11 were not. SIV uptake and refusal were stable over time and justified by multiple arguments. Coupons for free vaccines and regular doctor visits contributed to the habit of vaccination. Vaccination decisions were frequently anchored in past experiences of influenza and its vaccine. Patients often justified non-vaccination with attitudes of trivialisation/relativisation of influenza-associated risks and the perception that these can be controlled by means other than vaccination (e.g., through the avoidance of exposure). Some misbeliefs (e.g., SIV causes influenza) and doubts about SIV effectiveness and safety also existed. Several patients reported increased mistrust of SIV since the A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Patients trusted their doctors strongly regardless of their SIV behaviour, but unvaccinated patients had little trust in the government and pharmaceutical companies. Some discordances were found between perceptions and behaviour (e.g., remaining vaccinated despite doubts about SIV effectiveness or remaining unvaccinated despite feelings of vulnerability towards influenza complication), suggesting the existence of some vaccine hesitancy among patients., Conclusion: This study among patients with diabetes suggest that SIV uptake is stable, thanks to a favourable environment. Nonetheless, SIV refusal is also stable over time. Unvaccinated patients used multiple arguments to justify SIV refusal, including compensatory health beliefs. Physicians should take every opportunity to recommend SIV. The necessary individualised patient education regarding SIV requires better physician training in patients priorities. While almost all patients strongly trust their doctors, unvaccinated patients distrust distal stakeholders: it is absolutely essential to restore trust in them and to develop new more effective influenza vaccines.

Introduction: The reasons for vaccine hesitancy and its relation to individual socioeconomic status (SES) must be better understood. Areas covered: This review focused on developed countries with programs addressing major financial barriers to vaccination access. We systematically reviewed differences by SES in uptake of publicly funded childhood vaccines and in cognitive determinants (beliefs, attitudes) of parental decisions about vaccinating their children. Using the PRISMA statement to guide this review, we searched three electronic databases from January 2000 through April 2016. We retained 43 articles; 34 analyzed SES differences in childhood vaccine uptake, 7 examined differences in its cognitive determinants, and 2 both outcomes. Expert commentary: Results suggest that barriers to vaccination access persist among low-SES children in several settings. Vaccination programs could be improved to provide all mandatory and recommended vaccines 100% free of charge, in both public organizations and private practices, and to reimburse vaccine administration. Multicomponent interventions adapted to the context could also be effective in reducing these inequalities. For specific vaccines (notably for measles, mumps, and rubella), in UK and Germany, uptake was lowest among the most affluent. Interventions carefully tailored to respond to specific concerns of vaccine-hesitant parents, without reinforcing hesitancy, are needed.

This article sought to estimate the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (VH) among French general practitioners (GPs) and to study its demographic, professional and personal correlates. We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey about GPs' vaccination-related attitudes and practices in 2014 in a national panel of 1,712 GPs in private practice, randomly selected from an exhaustive database of health professionals in France. A cluster analysis of various dimensions of VH (self-reported vaccine recommendations, perceptions of vaccine risks and usefulness) identified three clusters: 86% of GPs (95% confidence interval (CI): 84-88) were not or only slightly vaccine-hesitant, 11% (95% CI: 9-12) moderately hesitant and 3% (95% CI: 3-4) highly hesitant or opposed to vaccination. GPs in the latter two clusters were less frequently vaccinated and reported occasional practice of alternative medicine more often than those in the first cluster; they also described less experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and more experience with patients who they considered had serious adverse effects from vaccination. This study confirms the presence of VH among French GPs but also suggests that its prevalence is moderate. Given GPs' central role in vaccination, these results nevertheless call for a mobilisation of stakeholders to address VH among GPs., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (This article is copyright of The Authors, 2016.)

Research on vaccine criticism on the Internet is now at a crossroads, with an already important body of knowledge published on the subject but also a continuous and even growing interest in the scientific community. In this commentary, we reflect on the published literature from the standpoint of sociologists interested in social movements and their activists and the influence they can have on vaccination behaviors. We suggest several avenues of research for future studies of vaccine criticism on the Internet: 1) paying more attention to the actors who publish vaccine critical contents and to their use of the Internet in relationship to the other means through which they try to mobilize the population - the production of vaccine critical information on the Internet, and not only its nature and its reception, should therefore become one of the main objects of this strand of research -; 2) paying closer attention to what distinguishes the different strands of vaccine criticism regarding both what they dislike about vaccines (or about a given vaccine) and how this fight is integrated in a more general political or cultural struggle; 3) investigating further how the new forms of social interactions allowed by the Internet affect the transmission of vaccine related information and the capacity of vaccine critical actors to enroll members of the public in their political or cultural struggle.

Background: In recent years, vaccine hesitancy among health professionals has emerged as an important issue on public health agendas. However, we do not yet know very much about whether, and if so how, trust in institutions affects their practices., Methods: A path analysis model explaining the influence of trust on GPs' vaccine hesitancy was applied to a cross-sectional survey of 1,582 French GPs performed in 2014. We hypothesized that distrust in public health institutions influences GPs' concerns about the safety of various vaccines, their perceptions about the importance of vaccination, their self-efficacy in the doctor-patient relationship, and ultimately their vaccination recommendations to patients., Results: GPs' trust in institutions was found to be significantly associated with lower vaccine hesitancy, an association mediated to a large extent by the vaccine's perceived safety (β = 0.09, P < 0.01) and the importance of vaccination (β = 0.46, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: These results suggest that restoration of high vaccination coverage may require the re-establishment of a significant degree of trust in the public health system among health professionals.

Background: This study aimed to assess: 1) vaccine hesitancy (VH) prevalence among French general practitioners (GPs) through the frequency of their vaccine recommendations, and 2) the determinants of these recommendations., Methods: Cross-sectional observational study in 2014 nested in a national panel of 1712 randomly selected GPs in private practice in France. We constructed a score of self-reported recommendation frequency for 6 specific vaccines to target populations., Results: 16% to 43% of GPs sometimes or never recommended at least one specific vaccine to their target patients. Multivariable logistic regressions of the dichotomized score showed that GPs recommended vaccines frequently when they felt comfortable explaining their benefits and risks to patients (OR = 1.87; 1.35-2.59), or trusted official sources of information highly (OR = 1.40; 1.01-1.93). They recommended vaccines infrequently when they considered that adverse effects were likely (OR = 0.71; 0.52-0.96) or doubted the vaccine's utility (OR = 0.21; 0.15-0.29)., Interpretation: Our findings show that after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some VH exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviors depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them. Further research is needed to confirm these results among health care workers in other countries.

In 2009-2010, the H1N1 episode occurred in a general context of decreasing public confidence in vaccination. We assumed opposition to vaccination in general to be an 'unfounded fear', reflecting ignorance and perceived vulnerability among low-socioeconomic status (SES) people, and opposition to the H1N1 vaccine a 'legitimate concern' reflecting the elite's commitment to 'risk culture' in a 'risk society'. We indirectly tested these assumptions by investigating the socioeconomic profiles associated with opposition to vaccination in general and opposition to the H1N1 vaccine specifically. Our second aim was to determine whether or not opposition to the H1N1 vaccine fuelled opposition to vaccination in general. We used data from a telephone survey conducted in 2009-2010 among a random sample of French people aged 15-79 (N = 9480). Attitudes toward vaccination in general and toward the H1N1 vaccine specifically varied significantly between October 2009 and June 2010 with strong correlation being observed between these attitudes throughout the whole period. In multivariable analysis attitudes toward vaccination in general remained a significant predictor of attitudes to the H1N1 vaccine and vice versa, for distinct profiles as follows: males, older people, low-SES people for opposition to vaccination in general, versus females, people aged 35-49 and those with an intermediate SES for opposition to the H1N1 vaccine. Results also differed regarding indicators of social vulnerability, proximity to preventive medicine and vaccination history. The first profile supported the "unfounded fears expressed by low-SES people" hypothesis, while the second echoed previous work related to middle-classes' "healthism". Opposition to vaccination should not be reduced to irrational reactions reflecting ignorance or misinformation and further research is needed to acquire a greater understanding of the motives of opponents., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Context: In 2021, French health authorities strongly promoted vaccination against COVID-19. The authors assumed that refusing this vaccine became a stigma, and they investigated potential public stigma toward unvaccinated people among the French population. Methods: A representative sample of the French adult population (N = 2,015) completed an online questionnaire in September 2021. The authors focused on participants who were already vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to get vaccinated (N = 1,742). A cluster analysis was used to obtain contrasted attitudinal profiles, and the authors investigated associated factors with logistic regressions. Findings: Regarding attitudes toward unvaccinated people, a majority of respondents supported several pejorative statements, and a significant minority also endorsed social rejection attitudes. The authors found four contrasting attitudinal profiles: moral condemnation only (32% of respondents), full stigma (26%), no stigma (26%), and stigma rejection (16%). Early vaccination, civic motives for it, faith in science, rejection of political extremes, and being aged 65 or older were the main factors associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward unvaccinated people. Conclusions: The authors found some evidence of stigmatization toward unvaccinated people, but further research is needed, especially to investigate perceived stigmatization among them. The authors discuss their results with reference to the concept of "folk devils" and from a public health perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last decade, public health research has emphasised the growing public disaffection with vaccination. This contemporary vaccine hesitation (VH) refers to a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines, as well as agreement despite doubt and reluctance. We investigated VH among French parents of young children, with an emphasis on two key features of VH: trust towards physicians and commitment to vaccination issues. We targeted two populations with contrasting socioeconomic profiles, using in‐depth interviews (n = 25). Most parents exhibited some kind of VH, with differentiated attitudes across vaccines, including acceptance despite enduring doubts, especially for vaccines already provided to older siblings ('vaccine inertia'). Despite the rise of the Internet and social media, our participants still strongly relied on face‐to‐face interactions with peers and significant others. Most participants trusted their own physician but this was the result of a selection process: they had engaged resources to find a physician they could trust. Participants with contrasted socioeconomic profiles struggled with the same dilemmas, and they committed themselves to the same quest to find the 'right' physician. Nevertheless, parents with a higher socioeconomic status were able to engage more resources and use a wider repertoire of actions, and they also displayed greater health literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage in France has fallen substantially since 2010 and the onset of a media controversy on the subject of its safety and efficacy. In this article we examine how and why mothers agree or do not agree to HPV vaccination for their daughters. We draw on data from a survey of French mothers of girls within the HPV vaccination target population (11–14 years old). We used semi-structured interviews to examine their perceptions of this relatively new vaccine and how such perceptions were shaped by their past experiences of vaccines and health in general. We also talked to them about their sources of information, their level of trust in these sources, and how their perception of risk changed as they accessed different and often contradictory information. We found that mothers’ fears of side effects and of ‘new’ vaccines was one of the main reason why they either refused to get their daughters vaccinated or hesitated. Mothers told us that they consulted several different sources, tended to trust their doctors most, but still questioned their recommendations. Although they presented the media and the Internet as untrustworthy, the information from those sources, whether gathered proactively or in passing, significantly influenced their decisions by introducing doubt or by prompting more information-seeking. In this article we show the dynamic nature of this decision-making process and we found that a substantial number of the mothers in our study said that they had been advised by at least one of their doctors not to have their daughter vaccinated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In July, 2009, French health authorities, like those in many other countries, decided to embark on a mass vaccination campaign against the pandemic A(H1N1) influenza. Private general practitioners (GPs) were not involved in this campaign. We studied GPs' pandemic vaccine (pvaccine) uptake, quantified the relative contribution of its potential explanatory factors and studied whether their own vaccination choice was correlated with their recommendations to patients about pvaccination. Methodology/Principal Findings: In this cross-sectional telephone survey, professional investigators interviewed an existing panel of randomly selected private GPs (N= 1431; response rate at inclusion in the panel: 36.8%; participation rate in the survey: 100%). The main outcome variable was GPs' own pvaccine uptake. We used an averaging multi-model approach to quantify the relative contribution of factors associated with their vaccination. The pvaccine uptake rate was 61% (95%CI = 58.3-63.3). Four independent factors contributed the most to this rate (partial Nagelkerke's R² ): history of previous vaccination against seasonal influenza (14.5%), perception of risks and efficacy of the pvaccine (10.8%), opinions regarding the organization of the vaccination campaign (7.1%), and perception of the pandemic's severity (5.2%). Overall, 71.3% (95%CI = 69.0-73.6) of the participants recommended pvaccination to young adults at risk and 40.1% (95%CI = 37.6- 42.7) to other young adults. GPs' own pvaccination was strongly predictive of their recommendation to both young adults at risk (OR = 9.6; 95%CI = 7.2- 12.6) and those not at risk (OR = 8.5; 95%CI = 6.4-11.4). Conclusions/Significance: These results suggest that around 60% of French private GPs followed French authorities' recommendations about vaccination of health care professionals against the A(H1N1) influenza. They pinpoint priority levers for improving preparedness for future influenza pandemics. Besides encouraging GPs' own uptake of regular vaccination against seasonal influenza, providing GPs with clear information about the risks and efficacy of any new pvaccine and involving them in the organization of any future vaccine campaign may improve their pvaccine uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reaching the last pockets of unvaccinated people is challenging, and has led to the consideration of mandatory vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to assess attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in France before the announcement of—and factors associated with opposition to—this type of policy. Between the 10th and 23rd May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over, and a specific sample of the French senior population aged over 65. Among 3056 respondents, 1314 (43.0%) were in favour of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, 1281 (41.9%) were opposed to such a policy, and 461 (15.1%) were undecided. Among opponents to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for the general population, 385 (30.05%) were in favour of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs). In multivariate analysis, the age groups 18–24 and 25–34 years were significantly more opposed than the reference group (>75 years old) with respective adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 4.67 (1.73–12.61) and 3.74 (1.57–8.93). Having no intention of getting COVID-19 vaccination was strongly associated with opposition to mandatory vaccination (aOR 10.67, 95%CI 6.41–17.76). In comparison with partisans of the centre, partisans of the far left and green parties were more likely to be opposed to mandatory COVID-19 vaccine, with respective aORs (95%CI) of 1.89 (1.06–3.38) and 2.08 (1.14–3.81). Attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are split in the French general population, and the debate might become politicized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As Covid-19 spreads across the world, governments turn a hopeful eye towards research and development of a vaccine against this new disease. But it is one thing to make a vaccine available, and it is quite another to convince the public to take the shot, as the precedent of the 2009 H1N1 influenza illustrated. In this paper, we present the results of four online surveys conducted in April 2020 in representative samples of the French population 18 years of age and over (N = 5018). These surveys were conducted during a period when the French population was on lockdown and the daily number of deaths attributed to the virus reached its peak. We found that if a vaccine against the new coronavirus became available, almost a quarter of respondents would not use it. We also found that attitudes to this vaccine were correlated significantly with political partisanship and engagement with the political system. Attitudes towards this future vaccine did not follow the traditional mapping of political attitudes along a Left-Right axis. The rift seems to be between people who feel close to governing parties (Centre, Left and Right) on the one hand, and, on the other, people who feel close to Far-Left and Far-Right parties as well as people who do not feel close to any party. We draw on the French sociological literature on ordinary attitudes to politics to discuss our results as well as the cultural pathways via which political beliefs can affect perceptions of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. • Almost a quarter of the French population would not get vaccinated against COVID-19. • Attitudes are correlated with political partisanship and engagement with politics. • Attitudes do not follow the traditional separation between Left-wing and Right-wing. • Refusal is associated with proximity radical parties and to abstention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The relations between vaccine hesitancy (VH) and individual socioeconomic status (SES) vary with context and remain poorly understood. We examined associations between parental SES and VH levels and their potential mediation by two attitudinal factors: commitment to making "good" health-related decisions and trust in mainstream medicine. Methods Data come from the 2016 Baromètre santé , a random cross-sectional telephone survey of the French general population. We analyzed a sample comprising 3927 parents of children aged 1–15 years, dividing them into 4 categories according to their VH level. We performed bivariate and then multiple multinomial logistic regression analyses to study associations between parental educational level, income, and VH. We then reassessed the logistic model with a causal steps approach, adding the commitment and trust scores. Results Vaccine refusers accounted for 26% of parents (95% CI = 25%, 28%), delayers 7% (95% CI = 6%, 8%), and acceptors with doubts 13% (95% CI = 12%, 14%). In bivariate analyses, educational level was associated with VH but income was not, while commitment and trust scores varied significantly with both VH and educational level (p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, highly educated parents were more prone to be delayers (AOR ≥ Bac + 4 versus < Bac = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12, 2.69) or refusers (AOR ≥ Bac + 4 versus < Bac = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.19, 2.04) than nonhesitant. These associations did not remain significant after inclusion of the commitment and trust scores in the model. Conclusions Vaccine refusal and delay are frequent among French parents, especially the more educated. Our results suggest that levels of commitment and trust play a key role in shaping VH. Suitable educational interventions are needed to restore trust in authorities and vaccines. Helping healthcare professionals to communicate better with vaccine-hesitant parents is also essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How much does endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) correlate with negative attitudes towards vaccines? One of the difficulties of analysing the relationship between attitudes to CAM and attitudes towards vaccines rests in the complexity of both. Which form of CAM endorsement is associated with what type of reticence towards vaccines? While the literature on the relationship between CAM and attitudes towards vaccines is growing, this question has not yet been explored. In this study we present the results of a survey conducted in July 2021 among a representative sample of the French mainland adult population (n = 3087). Using cluster analysis, we identified five profiles of CAM attitudes and found that even among the most pro-CAM group, very few respondents disagreed with the idea that CAM should only be used as a complement to conventional medicine. We then compared these CAM attitudes to vaccine attitudes. Attitudes to CAM had a distinct impact as well as a combined effect on attitudes to different vaccines and vaccines in general. However, we also found a) that attitudes to CAM provide a very limited explanation of vaccine hesitancy and b) that, among the hesitant, pro-CAM attitudes are often combined with other traits associated with vaccine hesitancy such as distrust of health agencies, radical political preferences and low income. Indeed, we found that both CAM endorsement and vaccine hesitancy are more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged. Drawing on these results, we argue that, to better understand the relationship between CAM and vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to look at how both can reflect lack of access and recourse to mainstream medicine and distrust of public institutions. • We explore endorsement of CAM and Vaccine Hesitancy in their multifaceted nature. • VH is more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged and so is CAM endorsement. • Radical forms of endorsement of CAM are associated with distrust of vaccines. • But endorsement of CAM must be combined with other factors to result in strong VH. • CAM endorsement is a very limited explanation of negative attitudes to vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]