Vaccinations have been widely used in society to prevent communicable diseases, however, there is a growing trend in social media and medical folklore depicting vaccines to cause adverse effects. Due to this spread of false information, some parents are refusing to vaccinate their children resulting in a subsequent resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases (Kitta & Goldberg, 2015). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), incidence of mumps in the United States (US) increased from slightly over 1,000 cases in 2015, to over 6,000 cases in 2016 and 2017 (CDC, 2018). Understanding motives behind vaccination non-compliance is essential to preserving the health of entire communities. Assessing knowledge and perception of vaccinations is the initial step in correcting the issue at hand. We hypothesized that significant differences exist in vaccination knowledge based on profession and sources of information, and thus examined healthcare professionals’ and non-healthcare laypersons’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards vaccinations, as well as the source of their information, and whether they intend to have their children receive vaccinations in the future.
Methods:
After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, participants were recruited via social media and administered the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale, which is internally consistent (Cronbach’s alpha of .86). A total of 226 participants responded to the VAX scale and answered demographic questions regarding their age, education, occupation, and source of vaccination information.
Results:
Nearly no participants had personally experienced or witnessed vaccine injury, which was the only question without statistically significant difference. Significant differences were found in all other questions of vaccination knowledge between sources of information (p<.05- p<.0005). Participants using social media as a primary source for vaccination education had significantly lower scores of vaccination knowledge than those receiving information from healthcare professionals. Participants with primarily social media-sourced information scored lowest on actual vaccination knowledge but highest in confidence of their knowledge (p<.0005). Clinician participants were far more positive toward vaccination intentions and more knowledgeable than laypeople (p<.05). Participant age demonstrated significant differences (p<.05) in their views of vaccine safety: youngest participants felt more safe than oldest participants; youngest were least worried about unforeseen problems; youngest disagreed most with their older counterparts that vaccines were “moneymakers” for pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, youngest participants agreed most that vaccinations should be mandatory for schools. More educated participants were most concerned about unknown future effects of vaccines (p=.029).
Conclusion:
To our knowledge, research comparing these populations’ sources and levels of vaccination knowledge does not exist, ergo, this study substantially adds to the body of knowledge regarding vaccination comprehension and intent to vaccinate. Vaccines are among the most longitudinally well-studied medications worldwide, yet educated participants still feared unknown effects. This research is essential to disseminate throughout nursing science as nurses should be assessing sources of vaccination knowledge along with immunization history to mitigate irrational fears in order to improve societal health globally.