• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Conscious consideration of herd immunity in influenza vaccination decisions

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Jul;45(1):118-21. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.016.
Conscious consideration of herd immunity in influenza vaccination decisions.
Parker AM, Vardavas R, Marcum CS, Gidengil CA.
Source

RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Influenza vaccination decisions may be influenced by perceived risk reduction related to herd immunity.
PURPOSE:

This paper examines how free-riding (i.e., foregoing vaccination because of reduced risk perceptions related to herd immunity) or protective benefits to the community affect vaccination decisions.
METHODS:

A survey of a nationally representative panel of U.S. adults (N=442 respondents; data collected and analyzed during 2012) asked about how respondents made vaccination decisions, including whether and how vaccination among the members of respondents' social networks influenced their own vaccination decisions.
RESULTS:

Most individuals (61%) reported that vaccination in the social network would not influence their decision. Among those perceiving being influenced by vaccination in their social network, most stated that an increase in network vaccination coverage would make them more likely to get vaccinated, rather than less. Overall, only 6% (28 of 442) gave a response consistent with the reduced-risk logic of herd immunity, which was more common among those stating that they would be less likely to get vaccinated (emphasizing free-riding) than among those more likely to get vaccinated (emphasizing social protection; 33% vs 11%, two-sided, p=0.0005). The reduced-risk logic of herd immunity, and more specifically free-riding, is consciously considered by relatively few individuals. Far more common are social influences bolstering personal vaccination, such as peer pressure and social learning (6% vs 11%, two-sided, p=0.015).
CONCLUSIONS:

Interventionists may be more successful by capitalizing on existing social-influence considerations than by trying to combat the conscious lure of free-riding.

Copyright ? 2013 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
23790997
[PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23790997
 
Back
Top Bottom