To fight against non-vaccination, researchers have produced a typology. They propose a strategy adapted to each of the four categories.
Distrust of vaccination is a worldwide phenomenon. The motivations are different, but reluctant people can have things in common. According to a review of studies published in Policy Insights from the Behavorial and Brain Sciences, four categories can be distinguished. For each of them, adapted solutions can be proposed.
The indifferent
The first category includes people who do not care about the protection conferred by different vaccines. “The general involvement in the decision is low because (these) individuals do not feel threatened by infectious diseases. And if individuals do not feel a minimum level of threat, they will not engage in protective behavior, ”analyze the authors.
For this group, improving communication around vaccination is the main solution. Information campaigns must gain momentum, stressing the risk associated with infections and the health benefits that this gesture can have. Myths surrounding vaccination – including the risk of autism and autoimmune diseases – must also be debunked step by step. The researchers recommend more investment on the part of doctors, and a change in vaccine policy: why not make vaccination mandatory, or establish a reward system?
The wait-and-see
In the second category, the German-American team includes any individual whose attitude towards vaccination is positive… but who never travels to submit to it. “If there is an intention to be vaccinated, structural barriers such as difficult access or a lack of control block the implementation of this decision,” they note.
For this public, the State should facilitate access to vaccination and financial incentives … but also basic methods such as sending SMS or phone calls.
The suspicious
The third category is the most problematic. It is made up of people who are suspicious of vaccination, because of poor knowledge and a distorted perception. Here too, a precise information policy that dispels myths about vaccination can be a good solution. For real success, physicians must invest more, because they are – generally – a source of trust.
Calculators
The last category is still the most reasonable. Its members weigh the pros and cons of vaccination. If the available information is contradictory – as for Gardasil – they adopt Pliny’s motto: when in doubt, abstain. This is where the solution is simplest: to provide as much reliable information as possible on the effectiveness of vaccination and on the importance of collective protection.
Because it is the suspicious who will be the most difficult to convince, judge the authors. Concentrating the effort on this population could even prove to be counterproductive: they would risk stepping in. Therefore, “efforts should focus on motivating the complacent, removing barriers for those who think vaccination is impractical, and providing incentives and utility for those who calculate.
These strategies can be more promising, more economically attractive, and more effective than trying to convince those who do not trust vaccination, ”they conclude. On the other hand, no mention is made of the conspirators.
.
