Addressing the emergence of pediatric vaccination concerns: recommendations from a Canadian policy analysis
- PMID: 16620003
- PMCID: PMC6976188
- DOI: 10.1007/BF03405334
Addressing the emergence of pediatric vaccination concerns: recommendations from a Canadian policy analysis
Abstract
Ever since the advent of pediatric vaccination, individuals have expressed concerns about both its risks and benefits. These concerns have once again resurfaced among some segments of the population and could potentially undermine national vaccination programs. The views of the public, however, must be considered and respected in the formulation of vaccination policy. We have conducted an analysis of the pediatric vaccination "debate" in the Canadian context. We believe that there is common ground between those who support pediatric vaccination and those who are concerned about these programs. Based on our findings, we believe that the goal of public health authorities should be to maintain trust in vaccines by continuing to meet certain reciprocal responsibilities. To do so, we recommend the following: 1) increased investment in adverse event reporting systems; 2) request for proposals for consideration of a no-fault compensation program; 3) developing pre-emptive strategies to deal with potential vaccine risks; 4) further examination of mechanisms to improve communication between physicians and parents concerned about vaccination. All of these approaches would require additional investment in pediatric vaccination. However, such an investment is easy to justify given the benefits offered by pediatric vaccination and the ramifications of failing to maintain confidence in vaccination programs or missing a vaccine-related adverse event.
On s’interroge sur les risques et les avantages de la vaccination pédiatrique depuis ses touts débuts. De telles préoccupations commencent à resurgir dans certains segments de la population et pourraient miner les programmes de vaccination nationaux. Les points de vue du public doivent néanmoins être pris en compte et respectés lors de la formulation des politiques de vaccination. Nous avons analysé le « débat » sur la vaccination pédiatrique dans le contexte canadien. À notre avis, il y a des points communs entre les partisans de la vaccination pédiatrique et les personnes que ces programmes inquiètent. D’après nos constatations, nous croyons que l’objectif des autorités de santé publique doit être de préserver la confiance envers les vaccins tout en continuant de s’acquitter de certaines responsabilités réciproques. À cette fin, nous recommandons: 1) d’investir davantage dans les systèmes de notification des manifestations indésirables; 2) de lancer des appels d’offres en vue d’un programme d’indemnisation sans égard à la responsabilité; 3) d’élaborer des stratégies préventives pour composer avec les risques possibles des vaccins; et 4) d’examiner plus avant les mécanismes visant à améliorer la communication entre les médecins et les parents préoccupés par la vaccination. Toutes ces approches exigent des investissements supplémentaires dans la vaccination pédiatrique. De tels investissements sont toutefois faciles à justifier, vu les avantages de la vaccination pédiatrique et les retombées négatives d’un bris de confiance envers les programmes de vaccination ou du fait d’avoir négligé une manifestation postvaccinale indésirable.
Comment in
-
Mandatory immunization of health care providers: the time has come.Can J Public Health. 2006 Mar-Apr;97(2):86-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03405321. Can J Public Health. 2006. PMID: 16619991 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The case for a vaccine injury compensation program for Canada.Can J Public Health. 2012 Mar-Apr;103(2):122-4. doi: 10.1007/BF03404215. Can J Public Health. 2012. PMID: 22530534 Free PMC article.
-
Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries: A review and survey of implementing countries.PLoS One. 2020 May 21;15(5):e0233334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233334. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 32437376 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Who will pay for the adverse events resulting from smallpox vaccination? Liability and compensation issues.NHPF Issue Brief. 2003 Mar 12;(788):1-15. NHPF Issue Brief. 2003 Mar 12;(788):1-15. PMID: 12650125
-
Vaccine Rejecting Parents' Engagement With Expert Systems That Inform Vaccination Programs.J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Mar;14(1):65-76. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9756-7. Epub 2016 Dec 1. J Bioeth Inq. 2017. PMID: 27909947
-
Strengthening vaccination policies in Latin America: an evidence-based approach.Vaccine. 2013 Aug 20;31(37):3826-33. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.12.062. Epub 2013 Jan 25. Vaccine. 2013. PMID: 23357196 Review.
Cited by
-
Mandatory immunization of health care providers: the time has come.Can J Public Health. 2006 Mar-Apr;97(2):86-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03405321. Can J Public Health. 2006. PMID: 16619991 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Public Health Agency of Canada. Infectious Diseases News Brief. Rubella: Ontario; 2005.
-
- Ward L. The Guardian. 2002. Minister outlines steps to boost image of MMR jabs.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical