Likely Correlation between Sources of Information and Acceptability of A/H1N1 Swine-Origin Influenza Virus Vaccine in Marseille, France
Open Access
- 25 June 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 5 (6) , e11292
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011292
Abstract
In France, there was a reluctance to accept vaccination against the A/H1N1 pandemic influenza virus despite government recommendation and investment in the vaccine programme. We examined the willingness of different populations to accept A/H1N1vaccination (i) in a French hospital among 3315 employees immunized either by in-house medical personnel or mobile teams of MDs and (ii) in a shelter housing 250 homeless persons. Google was used to assess the volume of enquiries concerning incidence of influenza. We analyzed the information on vaccination provided by Google, the website of the major French newspapers, and PubMed. Two trust Surveys were used to assess public opinion on the trustworthiness of people in different professions. Paramedics were significantly more reluctant to accept immunisation than qualified medical staff. Acceptance was significantly increased when recommended directly by MDs. Anecdotal cases of directly observed severe infections were followed by enhanced acceptance of paramedical staff. Scientific literature was significantly more in favour of vaccination than Google and French newspaper websites. In the case of the newspaper websites, information correlated with their recognised political reputations, although they would presumably claim independence from political bias. The Trust Surveys showed that politicians were highly distrusted in contrast with doctors and pharmacists who were considered much more trustworthy. The low uptake of the vaccine could reflect failure to convey high quality medical information and advice relating to the benefits of being vaccinated. We believe that the media and internet contributed to this problem by raising concerns within the general population and that failure to involve GPs in the control programme may have been a mistake. GPs are highly regarded by the public and can provide face-to-face professional advice and information. The top-down strategy of vaccine programme management and information delivered by the Ministry of Health could have aggravated the problem, because the general population does not always trust politicians.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why do I need it? I am not at risk! Public perceptions towards the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccineBMC Infectious Diseases, 2010
- Low Acceptability of A/H1N1 Pandemic Vaccination in French Adult Population: Did Public Health Policy Fuel Public Dissonance?PLOS ONE, 2010
- Trial of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Monovalent MF59-Adjuvanted VaccineNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Response to a Monovalent 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) VaccineNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Early Assessment of Anxiety and Behavioral Response to Novel Swine-Origin Influenza A(H1N1)PLOS ONE, 2009
- Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query dataNature, 2009
- Medicine in the Popular Press: The Influence of the Media on Perceptions of DiseasePLOS ONE, 2008
- The Effect of Universal Influenza Immunization on Mortality and Health Care UsePLoS Medicine, 2008
- The Effectiveness of Vaccine Day and Educational Interventions on Influenza Vaccine Coverage Among Health Care Workers at Long-Term Care FacilitiesAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2007
- Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemicNature, 2006