Risk Communication and Vaccination Workshop Summary (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Influence on the Acceptability of Vaccine Risks
Influence on the Acceptability of Vaccine Risks
Pages 9-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
For example, in their search to draw conclusions or solve problems, they may sometimes rely inappropriately on limited data, impose order on random events, fit ambiguous evidence into their own predispositions, omit components of risk such as human errors, and be overconfident in the reliability of analyses (Fischhoff et al., 1982; Fischhoff and Merz, 1995; Freudenberg and Pastor, 1992~. INFLUENCES ON THE ACCEPTABILITY OF VACCINE RISKS3 Individual's immunization decisions are influenced by decisions that others make.
|
From page 10... ...
Studies have also addressed issues of mandatory vaccination, informed consent, individual rights versus societal welfare, and people's trust in information providers. The Logic of Vaccination Decisions: Bandwagoning, Free-Riding, and Altruism A major influence on the acceptance of vaccine risks is whether people employ what is known in the risk communication field as bandwagoning, freeriding, or altruistic logic.
|
From page 11... ...
Although childhood vaccines may prevent much death and disability from disease while causing relatively few deaths or disabilities from adverse effects, some participants felt that it is not appropriate to compare the value of lives lost due to adverse reactions to a vaccine to the value of lives lost due to the natural disease. A consumer advocate stated that Americans should never be forced by the government to engage in any medical procedure which carries the risk of injury or death, including vaccination, without informed consent.
|
From page 12... ...
Participants discussed the effect on vaccine coverage of allowing greater access to exemptions on philosophical grounds within a mandatory vaccination program, with several speakers commenting that the overall effect might be relatively small. For example, speakers who promote immunization for public health departments and private organizations commented that few parents whose children are unvaccinated cite philosophical reasons for the lack of vaccination.
|
From page 13... ...
A media representative commented that people who are exposed to risk information take more responsibility for health care decisions and thus are less likely to blame others when the unexpected happens. Informed consent with the aim of promoting a decision that someone believes is best for the individual can backfire in the vaccine arena, noted one speaker, an expert on risk communication.
|
From page 14... ...
At the same time, they have the responsibility to provide their patients accurate and unbiased information on the nature and extent of the risks involved with vaccination. Ultimately, the public might be better served if public health officials, health care providers, and the population they serve all worked towards the development of a trusting relationship, in which public health officials were seen as having responsibility for ensuring the health of the population, including balancing disease and vaccine risks (IOM, 1996b)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.