Scare tactics

Okay, let’s try this one more time. We agree that vaccine rates are declining and that the outbreak of measles believed to have spread from an index case at Disneyland is an example of the risk this country faces from those declining rates. In the last few years, there has been at least one study that found that providing vaccine-hesitant families with factual provaccine information failed to change parental attitudes. In fact, the educational effort backfired in some cases, and hesitant parents found other arguments to support their flawed positions. An equally discouraging study presented in the last year suggests that parents have already decided whether they will vaccinate even before they enter into childbearing, long before pediatricians have an opportunity to present their case.

In the face of this dismal landscape of antiscience, some pediatricians have decided to discharge vaccine-refusing families from their practices. Although this approach may create a thin shell of protection against some malpractice suits, and provide their youngest patients a shred of protection from waiting-room acquired infection, it has no effect on the larger problem facing this country.

A study from the University of Illinois published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled, “Countering anti-vaccine attitudes” (PNAS 2015 Aug 18;112[33]:10321-4) suggests that we may have been too timid in choosing our strategies to combat the antivaccine epidemic. From a group of more than 800 individuals across a broad economic base, a smaller group of 315 was culled using several strategies to ensure that the participants were paying attention. They were then divided into three subgroups whose pretest vaccine attitudes did not differ.

One group was presented with materials that included photographs of ill children with rashes and a testimonial from the mother whose child had had measles. A second group was presented with articles exposing the myth of a relationship between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. This group was labeled the “autism correction” group. The control group was presented with several scientific articles unrelated to vaccines.

The researchers found that while the control group and the autism correction group showed no change in their attitudes to vaccines, those individuals presented with graphic evidence of the risk of disease did demonstrate a significant change in attitude. So, the message would seem to be that scaring parents might work.

I’m not sure why pediatricians have been so hesitant to employ scare tactics in the past. While you and I may be more easily convinced by science-based evidence than the average parent, we also have seen children with vaccine-preventable diseases or at least seen pictures and heard their horrible histories. I suspect that our provaccine attitudes are colored more by the horrors that we have seen and heard than by our lip service to the sanctity of science.

We may have been too worried about being labeled as fear mongers if we showed graphic pictures of sick and dying children and promoted tear-jerking testimonials from parents. If we were a business whose bottom line depended on selling vaccines, our marketing and advertising folks would have sent us on the fear-generating pathway long ago.

It is time to ask ourselves if the situation is so dire that it is time to stop pussyfooting around with soft educational messages and begin trying to scare the vaccine deniers into protecting their children – and everyone else’s.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

Okay, let’s try this one more time. We agree that vaccine rates are declining and that the outbreak of measles believed to have spread from an index case at Disneyland is an example of the risk this country faces from those declining rates. In the last few years, there has been at least one study that found that providing vaccine-hesitant families with factual provaccine information failed to change parental attitudes. In fact, the educational effort backfired in some cases, and hesitant parents found other arguments to support their flawed positions. An equally discouraging study presented in the last year suggests that parents have already decided whether they will vaccinate even before they enter into childbearing, long before pediatricians have an opportunity to present their case.

In the face of this dismal landscape of antiscience, some pediatricians have decided to discharge vaccine-refusing families from their practices. Although this approach may create a thin shell of protection against some malpractice suits, and provide their youngest patients a shred of protection from waiting-room acquired infection, it has no effect on the larger problem facing this country.

A study from the University of Illinois published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled, “Countering anti-vaccine attitudes” (PNAS 2015 Aug 18;112[33]:10321-4) suggests that we may have been too timid in choosing our strategies to combat the antivaccine epidemic. From a group of more than 800 individuals across a broad economic base, a smaller group of 315 was culled using several strategies to ensure that the participants were paying attention. They were then divided into three subgroups whose pretest vaccine attitudes did not differ.

One group was presented with materials that included photographs of ill children with rashes and a testimonial from the mother whose child had had measles. A second group was presented with articles exposing the myth of a relationship between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. This group was labeled the “autism correction” group. The control group was presented with several scientific articles unrelated to vaccines.

The researchers found that while the control group and the autism correction group showed no change in their attitudes to vaccines, those individuals presented with graphic evidence of the risk of disease did demonstrate a significant change in attitude. So, the message would seem to be that scaring parents might work.

I’m not sure why pediatricians have been so hesitant to employ scare tactics in the past. While you and I may be more easily convinced by science-based evidence than the average parent, we also have seen children with vaccine-preventable diseases or at least seen pictures and heard their horrible histories. I suspect that our provaccine attitudes are colored more by the horrors that we have seen and heard than by our lip service to the sanctity of science.

We may have been too worried about being labeled as fear mongers if we showed graphic pictures of sick and dying children and promoted tear-jerking testimonials from parents. If we were a business whose bottom line depended on selling vaccines, our marketing and advertising folks would have sent us on the fear-generating pathway long ago.

It is time to ask ourselves if the situation is so dire that it is time to stop pussyfooting around with soft educational messages and begin trying to scare the vaccine deniers into protecting their children – and everyone else’s.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

Okay, let’s try this one more time. We agree that vaccine rates are declining and that the outbreak of measles believed to have spread from an index case at Disneyland is an example of the risk this country faces from those declining rates. In the last few years, there has been at least one study that found that providing vaccine-hesitant families with factual provaccine information failed to change parental attitudes. In fact, the educational effort backfired in some cases, and hesitant parents found other arguments to support their flawed positions. An equally discouraging study presented in the last year suggests that parents have already decided whether they will vaccinate even before they enter into childbearing, long before pediatricians have an opportunity to present their case.

In the face of this dismal landscape of antiscience, some pediatricians have decided to discharge vaccine-refusing families from their practices. Although this approach may create a thin shell of protection against some malpractice suits, and provide their youngest patients a shred of protection from waiting-room acquired infection, it has no effect on the larger problem facing this country.

A study from the University of Illinois published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled, “Countering anti-vaccine attitudes” (PNAS 2015 Aug 18;112[33]:10321-4) suggests that we may have been too timid in choosing our strategies to combat the antivaccine epidemic. From a group of more than 800 individuals across a broad economic base, a smaller group of 315 was culled using several strategies to ensure that the participants were paying attention. They were then divided into three subgroups whose pretest vaccine attitudes did not differ.

One group was presented with materials that included photographs of ill children with rashes and a testimonial from the mother whose child had had measles. A second group was presented with articles exposing the myth of a relationship between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. This group was labeled the “autism correction” group. The control group was presented with several scientific articles unrelated to vaccines.

The researchers found that while the control group and the autism correction group showed no change in their attitudes to vaccines, those individuals presented with graphic evidence of the risk of disease did demonstrate a significant change in attitude. So, the message would seem to be that scaring parents might work.

I’m not sure why pediatricians have been so hesitant to employ scare tactics in the past. While you and I may be more easily convinced by science-based evidence than the average parent, we also have seen children with vaccine-preventable diseases or at least seen pictures and heard their horrible histories. I suspect that our provaccine attitudes are colored more by the horrors that we have seen and heard than by our lip service to the sanctity of science.

We may have been too worried about being labeled as fear mongers if we showed graphic pictures of sick and dying children and promoted tear-jerking testimonials from parents. If we were a business whose bottom line depended on selling vaccines, our marketing and advertising folks would have sent us on the fear-generating pathway long ago.

It is time to ask ourselves if the situation is so dire that it is time to stop pussyfooting around with soft educational messages and begin trying to scare the vaccine deniers into protecting their children – and everyone else’s.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”