Role of Culture, Norms, and Beliefs in our Opinion on Vaccinations
Immunization is a cost-effective strategy for averting millions of infectious illness episodes and deaths worldwide. Vaccines are preparations that, when administered, elicit immunological responses that result in the creation of antibodies that aid in the fight against infectious pathogens. Vaccination programs encounter challenges despite their public health benefits. One impediment is a public perception of vaccination’s relative dangers. The adoption of vaccination has been affected by sociocultural variables such as perception, socioeconomic position, gender norms, religion, and ethnicity. Parental perceptions about vaccination have a significant role in determining whether or not to use a vaccination program (Ames et al., 2019).
Vaccine scares and unexpected increases in vaccine demand serve as a reminder that the efficacy of mass immunization campaigns is determined by the public opinion of vaccination. The longing to keep the children and community healthy and disease-free is a reoccurring topic that motivates parents and guardians to vaccinate their children. According to CDC research on National Immunization Safety, parents who believed vaccinations were safe were presumably to get their children vaccinated than those who were indifferent or believed vaccines were harmful.
Additionally, parents who believed vaccinations were safe were presumably encouraged by their primary care provider to vaccinate their children more than parents and guardians who consider vaccines risky. Research done in Mozambique discovered that caregivers’ strong desire to keep children and the community healthy and disease-free affected their decision to get their kids vaccinated since the majority of caregivers recognized vaccines’ significant benefits to the child and family. Despite the vaccine’s very modest risk compared to its advantages, parental anxiety is a significant barrier to optimally children receiving vaccinations. The research found that parents were more inclined to forego vaccinations for their children due to fears about adverse effects. A similar conclusion was given in research done in the United States. Parents and guardians who chose not to vaccinate their children cited safety or side effect worries as the primary reason for their reservations regarding vaccination. The Declaration of Alma Ata on Primary Health Care indicated the significance of community participation in promoting and maintaining health, stating that “the people have the right and responsibility to participate individually and collectively in the planning and implementation of their health care.”
The community’s opinion of immunization programs and their involvement in them positively reinforces the parental perception. Concerns about vaccination safety are expressed by parents within the surroundings of their community and may be collaborated by other guardians in the same community (Ames et al.,2019). Religion and spirituality are critical components in determining how an infection is believed to be vulnerable and how severe it is perceived. Religious leaders are revered, and their power can persuade congregation members to accept or reject vaccination. Similar views exist in Pakistan, where some religious and tribal leaders express worry that the polio campaign is a Western plot to dominate the Muslim people.
Local culture influences people’s perceptions of danger or perceived vulnerability; individuals give value (positive or negative) to a problem based on their own experiences, and they trust specialists from comparable cultural backgrounds. Some religious authorities prohibit vaccination. Certain cultures prohibit men from administering childhood vaccinations. Some beliefs in most cultures are that vaccines cause infertility, with some believing that the vaccines pose reproductive health risks to anyone hoping to get pregnant. I believe that we have deep-seated, normative values that determine how we interpret the world around us, perceive risk, and make decisions. These cultural logics are universal across nationality, race and ethnicity, age, religion, and political orientation and they are fixed, unchanging. These cultural beliefs and norms, therefore, shape our present opinion on vaccines.
How Social Opinions Shape Our Values and Ideas on Vaccines
Vaccines have aided in eliminating and weakening the spread of various infectious illnesses, including smallpox, polio, measles, chickenpox, and meningitis. However, many people express worries about vaccine-related adverse events. These issues vary from concerns about overburdening the child’s immune system to contentious claims concerning vaccine-related adverse effects. One common misconception is that the vaccination may induce the disease against which it is intended to immunize. Another widely held belief is that vaccines, particularly the MMR vaccine (MMR stands for measles, mumps, and rubella), cause autism. The autism connection has generated much controversy.
In 1998, a British physician called Andrew Wakefield released research in the Lancet magazine in Great Britain that established a relationship between the MMR vaccination and autism. The study garnered widespread media attention, leading to a decline in British vaccination rates from 91 percent in 1997 to almost 80 percent in 2003, accompanied by an increase in measles infections. A lengthy examination by the British Medical Journal established that the relationship in the research was fictitious and that Wakefield manipulated data to bolster his claims. He was discredited, and his license was revoked, yet uncertainty persists in the minds of many parents. For example, most websites against vaccination argue against vaccination’s efficacy and safety, citing toxicity in vaccines and utilizing personal experiences of vaccine harm.
Most anti-vaccination advocates’ arguments may be categorized as part of a wider tendency known as “denialism.” Denialism is described as “the use of rhetorical arguments to create the impression of serious discussion when none exists, a technique aimed at rejecting a thesis on which there is scientific consensus” (Hoffman et al., 2019). Denialism use tactics such as relying on “conspiracy theories,” employing faux experts who choose only supportive evidence and disrepute all other evidence, producing unrealistic prospects for what research can deploy, and employing misconceptions. Despite worries about the Internet’s growing effect on vaccination uptake, there is less research on the effect of exposure to websites campaigning against vaccines on vaccine decision-making.
According to studies, individuals who postpone or refuse vaccinations are considerably most certainly to have searched for information on vaccines on the Internet. Anti-vaccination websites have been found to affect knowledge about risks negatively and choosing to have one vaccinated (Hoffman et al., 2019). Nonetheless, further study is required to determine whether persons who before then had reservations about vaccination are more apparent to do Internet searches from various sources or whether the Internet searches produce reservations about vaccination. The Internet’s availability, along with a growing public interest in and participation in the interpretation of vaccination adverse event data, has increasingly enabled the promotion of false correlations as reality. Rumors among the Muslim community that the polio campaign was a Western plan to control the Muslim population and that polio drops were used to induce sterility in youngsters resulted in a significant increase in Polio cases in that area. As was the case with polio, historical results such as the bad experience with the Trovan experiment in Nigeria can erode trust in the public eye and impact vaccination uptake, particularly when paired with demands from important politicians and the media. I believe that the experience of a community is not always restricted to vaccination, although it may affect it and that the opinions of the community members affect our ideas and opinions about vaccines.
How Social Interactions Shape Our Opinions on Vaccines
A structure of human relationships and interactions is referred to as a social network. The accumulation of vaccination views can be interpreted using the social network concept. According to social network theory, a person’s position within a social forum determines how much that person and other network members affect each other’s views and conduct. A person placed centrally in the community will be impacted more, especially by others, and will have a greater effect than a person with fewer network connections (Centola & Lord, 2018). Someone with a high degree of proximity centrality has short communication links to other agents and is thus well-positioned to distribute vaccine knowledge. Vaccination is a social activity since it occurs within the framework of human relationships and the fact that receiving a vaccination (or not receiving one) affects the health of others. Social interactions are exemplified by social dyads, which involve the connection between the patient and the provider. Patients often get vaccines through their healthcare professionals, and as a result, the provider-patient connection is critical.
The trust placed in the government agencies that establish schedules and recommendations for vaccines is a significant predictor of vaccine uptake. Another major element influencing vaccination attitudes and practice are social networks. Individuals may discuss vaccination opinions with close members of the family and members of their social groups, therefore incorporating decisions on vaccinations into their social status. Another aspect is social norms, which dictate that people’s activities must conform to their behavior and prospect, including vaccination. As a result, the standards they perceive might exert influence. The vaccination behavior of health care workers and their ability to spread social principles regarding vaccination among their workmates is critical since by being immunized, they safeguard patients from illness. Our response to societal pressures about vaccination directly impacts the spread of infectious illnesses in regions where vaccination is not required. Community leaders and publicists can have a substantial impact on vaccination acceptance or reluctance.
The media, including social media, have either a positive or negative vaccine influence and provide a forum for important opinion leaders to persuade others depending on the side one considers comfortable with. Social networking websites enable users to freely express their views and encounters and enable the organization of social networks to support or not support vaccinations. When government officials engage community leaders and request community input, social mobilization programs may be developed to enhance community awareness of the need for vaccinations and improve communication for vaccine uptake. Community leaders and members can be mobilized and taught to engage and spread these messages through door-to-door visits, community-based dialogues, gatherings of various age groups, traditional women societies, and religious leaders. I believe that these social interactions have an impact on our opinions of vaccines.
References
Ames, H., Glenton, C., & Lewin, S. (2019). Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), 1-9.
Centola, D., & Lord, T. (2018). The truth about behavioral change. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Hoffman, B. L., Felter, E. M., Chu, K. H., Shensa, A., Hermann, C., Wolynn, T., & Primack, B. A. (2019). It’s not all about autism: The emerging landscape of anti-vaccination sentiment on Facebook. Vaccine, 37(16), 2216-2223.