Vaccine Safety Information: Whom Do Parents Trust?

Most parents trust their children’s doctor as the primary source for vaccine safety information, but those who feel physicians do not provide enough information may look to untraditional sources of safety information, including celebrities and parents who believe their own child was harmed by a vaccine, results of one study has shown.

As part of a larger study of parents and nonparents recruited for a national online panel, 1,552 of 2,521 (62%) parents of children aged 17 years or younger responded to a survey about trust of vaccine safety information sources, Dr. Gary L. Freed and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reported online today April 18 in a supplement to the May issue of Pediatrics.

The survey asked parents if they place "a lot" of trust, "some" trust, or "no" trust in certain individuals or groups who provide vaccine safety information, including their children’s doctor, other health care providers, government vaccine experts or officials, family and friends, parents who claim their child was harmed by a vaccine, and celebrities. "The great majority [76%] of parents report trusting their child’s doctor a lot," the authors wrote, noting that the next most likely sources to be trusted were other health care providers (26%) and government experts (23%). Family and friends, as well as parents who believe vaccines harmed their children were considered to be somewhat trustworthy sources by 67% and 65% of the respondents, respectively, while celebrities were trusted a lot by 2% and somewhat by 24%, they reported (Pediatrics 2011;127:S107-12).

Although approximately 27% of the respondents reported trusting websites from doctor groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, "many parents reported that they do not use or view several potential sources of vaccine-safety information," including government websites, magazines and news articles, television programs, drug company websites, and the websites of antivaccine advocates, Dr. Freed and his associates said.

When the data were assessed by gender, there were significant differences. "Mothers differed from fathers in that mothers were more likely to report some or a lot of trust in vaccine-safety information provided by parents who claim their child was injured by vaccines, celebrities, television shows, and magazines/news articles," they stated. With respect to race/ethnicity, white and Hispanic parents were more likely than black parents were to place a lot or some trust in family and friends, while Hispanic parents were more likely than white or black parents were to trust celebrities a lot or some, they wrote.

"Other investigators have found that a significant number of parents feel that physicians do not provide enough information and that public health officials are not trustworthy," Dr. Freed and his associates said. These parents’ beliefs may be seen in the fact that they were more likely to trust celebrities or parents who claim their child was injured by vaccines. Usually, these sources use anecdotal information or personal accounts rather than population-based data or large clinical studies on which to base their perspectives. The dissonance between health professionals and non–health professionals as trusted sources of vaccine safety information "is shaping the national dialogue on the issue," the authors wrote, noting that the dissemination of information by untraditional sources is often not in the public’s best interest. For example, the finding that 26% of the survey respondents trust celebrities as sources of vaccine safety information "is sobering," they said. "Celebrities are rarely trained in the ability to discern and critique the scientific literature, and they are not often expert in epidemiology, immunology, or toxicology."

Public health officials should take note of the study findings when designing vaccine information media, according to the Dr. Freed and his associates. "Those who design public health efforts to provide evidence-based information must recognize that different strategies may be required to reach some groups of parents who are currently using other information sources. In particular, because the parents of many of today’s infants are more facile with electronic means of communication and social networking websites, newer methods of promulgation should be explored."

One promising communication strategy may be to target parents who have voiced concerns about vaccine safety with a comprehensive information packet and vaccine information statements before or even at the first vaccination visit, according to a study reported in the same issue of Pediatrics by Kirsten S. Vannice of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and her colleagues. The investigators provided 272 mothers who had indicated concerns about vaccine safety with a new vaccine-information pamphlet and Vaccine Information Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at one of three time points (prenatal visit, 1-week post partum well child visit, or 2-month vaccine visit) and used written surveys to assess their attitudes and beliefs about immunization before and after the review of materials. At all time points, distribution of the information "significantly improved attitudes about vaccination," the authors wrote. "Allowing adequate time to review vaccine information at any visit may benefit concerned mothers" (Pediatrics 2011;127:S120-6). However, the mothers indicated that they preferred receiving the information before the 2-month vaccination visit.

Dr. Freed and his colleagues involved in the study of sources of vaccine safety information disclosed having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Nicola P. Klein of Stanford (Calif.) University, a coinvestigator in the study of the timing of immunization information to mothers, has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth, Novartis, and MedImmune. Ms. Vannice was supported in part by a National Institutes of Health Research and Training Grant in International Maternal and Child Health. None of the other investigators in that study said they had any relevant financial disclosures. The study was performed in collaboration between the CDC–funded Vaccine Attitudes and Risk Perception (VARP) and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) groups.

Most parents trust their children’s doctor as the primary source for vaccine safety information, but those who feel physicians do not provide enough information may look to untraditional sources of safety information, including celebrities and parents who believe their own child was harmed by a vaccine, results of one study has shown.

As part of a larger study of parents and nonparents recruited for a national online panel, 1,552 of 2,521 (62%) parents of children aged 17 years or younger responded to a survey about trust of vaccine safety information sources, Dr. Gary L. Freed and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reported online today April 18 in a supplement to the May issue of Pediatrics.

The survey asked parents if they place "a lot" of trust, "some" trust, or "no" trust in certain individuals or groups who provide vaccine safety information, including their children’s doctor, other health care providers, government vaccine experts or officials, family and friends, parents who claim their child was harmed by a vaccine, and celebrities. "The great majority [76%] of parents report trusting their child’s doctor a lot," the authors wrote, noting that the next most likely sources to be trusted were other health care providers (26%) and government experts (23%). Family and friends, as well as parents who believe vaccines harmed their children were considered to be somewhat trustworthy sources by 67% and 65% of the respondents, respectively, while celebrities were trusted a lot by 2% and somewhat by 24%, they reported (Pediatrics 2011;127:S107-12).

Although approximately 27% of the respondents reported trusting websites from doctor groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, "many parents reported that they do not use or view several potential sources of vaccine-safety information," including government websites, magazines and news articles, television programs, drug company websites, and the websites of antivaccine advocates, Dr. Freed and his associates said.

When the data were assessed by gender, there were significant differences. "Mothers differed from fathers in that mothers were more likely to report some or a lot of trust in vaccine-safety information provided by parents who claim their child was injured by vaccines, celebrities, television shows, and magazines/news articles," they stated. With respect to race/ethnicity, white and Hispanic parents were more likely than black parents were to place a lot or some trust in family and friends, while Hispanic parents were more likely than white or black parents were to trust celebrities a lot or some, they wrote.

"Other investigators have found that a significant number of parents feel that physicians do not provide enough information and that public health officials are not trustworthy," Dr. Freed and his associates said. These parents’ beliefs may be seen in the fact that they were more likely to trust celebrities or parents who claim their child was injured by vaccines. Usually, these sources use anecdotal information or personal accounts rather than population-based data or large clinical studies on which to base their perspectives. The dissonance between health professionals and non–health professionals as trusted sources of vaccine safety information "is shaping the national dialogue on the issue," the authors wrote, noting that the dissemination of information by untraditional sources is often not in the public’s best interest. For example, the finding that 26% of the survey respondents trust celebrities as sources of vaccine safety information "is sobering," they said. "Celebrities are rarely trained in the ability to discern and critique the scientific literature, and they are not often expert in epidemiology, immunology, or toxicology."

Public health officials should take note of the study findings when designing vaccine information media, according to the Dr. Freed and his associates. "Those who design public health efforts to provide evidence-based information must recognize that different strategies may be required to reach some groups of parents who are currently using other information sources. In particular, because the parents of many of today’s infants are more facile with electronic means of communication and social networking websites, newer methods of promulgation should be explored."

One promising communication strategy may be to target parents who have voiced concerns about vaccine safety with a comprehensive information packet and vaccine information statements before or even at the first vaccination visit, according to a study reported in the same issue of Pediatrics by Kirsten S. Vannice of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and her colleagues. The investigators provided 272 mothers who had indicated concerns about vaccine safety with a new vaccine-information pamphlet and Vaccine Information Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at one of three time points (prenatal visit, 1-week post partum well child visit, or 2-month vaccine visit) and used written surveys to assess their attitudes and beliefs about immunization before and after the review of materials. At all time points, distribution of the information "significantly improved attitudes about vaccination," the authors wrote. "Allowing adequate time to review vaccine information at any visit may benefit concerned mothers" (Pediatrics 2011;127:S120-6). However, the mothers indicated that they preferred receiving the information before the 2-month vaccination visit.

Dr. Freed and his colleagues involved in the study of sources of vaccine safety information disclosed having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Nicola P. Klein of Stanford (Calif.) University, a coinvestigator in the study of the timing of immunization information to mothers, has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth, Novartis, and MedImmune. Ms. Vannice was supported in part by a National Institutes of Health Research and Training Grant in International Maternal and Child Health. None of the other investigators in that study said they had any relevant financial disclosures. The study was performed in collaboration between the CDC–funded Vaccine Attitudes and Risk Perception (VARP) and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) groups.

Most parents trust their children’s doctor as the primary source for vaccine safety information, but those who feel physicians do not provide enough information may look to untraditional sources of safety information, including celebrities and parents who believe their own child was harmed by a vaccine, results of one study has shown.

As part of a larger study of parents and nonparents recruited for a national online panel, 1,552 of 2,521 (62%) parents of children aged 17 years or younger responded to a survey about trust of vaccine safety information sources, Dr. Gary L. Freed and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reported online today April 18 in a supplement to the May issue of Pediatrics.

The survey asked parents if they place "a lot" of trust, "some" trust, or "no" trust in certain individuals or groups who provide vaccine safety information, including their children’s doctor, other health care providers, government vaccine experts or officials, family and friends, parents who claim their child was harmed by a vaccine, and celebrities. "The great majority [76%] of parents report trusting their child’s doctor a lot," the authors wrote, noting that the next most likely sources to be trusted were other health care providers (26%) and government experts (23%). Family and friends, as well as parents who believe vaccines harmed their children were considered to be somewhat trustworthy sources by 67% and 65% of the respondents, respectively, while celebrities were trusted a lot by 2% and somewhat by 24%, they reported (Pediatrics 2011;127:S107-12).

Although approximately 27% of the respondents reported trusting websites from doctor groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, "many parents reported that they do not use or view several potential sources of vaccine-safety information," including government websites, magazines and news articles, television programs, drug company websites, and the websites of antivaccine advocates, Dr. Freed and his associates said.

When the data were assessed by gender, there were significant differences. "Mothers differed from fathers in that mothers were more likely to report some or a lot of trust in vaccine-safety information provided by parents who claim their child was injured by vaccines, celebrities, television shows, and magazines/news articles," they stated. With respect to race/ethnicity, white and Hispanic parents were more likely than black parents were to place a lot or some trust in family and friends, while Hispanic parents were more likely than white or black parents were to trust celebrities a lot or some, they wrote.

"Other investigators have found that a significant number of parents feel that physicians do not provide enough information and that public health officials are not trustworthy," Dr. Freed and his associates said. These parents’ beliefs may be seen in the fact that they were more likely to trust celebrities or parents who claim their child was injured by vaccines. Usually, these sources use anecdotal information or personal accounts rather than population-based data or large clinical studies on which to base their perspectives. The dissonance between health professionals and non–health professionals as trusted sources of vaccine safety information "is shaping the national dialogue on the issue," the authors wrote, noting that the dissemination of information by untraditional sources is often not in the public’s best interest. For example, the finding that 26% of the survey respondents trust celebrities as sources of vaccine safety information "is sobering," they said. "Celebrities are rarely trained in the ability to discern and critique the scientific literature, and they are not often expert in epidemiology, immunology, or toxicology."

Public health officials should take note of the study findings when designing vaccine information media, according to the Dr. Freed and his associates. "Those who design public health efforts to provide evidence-based information must recognize that different strategies may be required to reach some groups of parents who are currently using other information sources. In particular, because the parents of many of today’s infants are more facile with electronic means of communication and social networking websites, newer methods of promulgation should be explored."

One promising communication strategy may be to target parents who have voiced concerns about vaccine safety with a comprehensive information packet and vaccine information statements before or even at the first vaccination visit, according to a study reported in the same issue of Pediatrics by Kirsten S. Vannice of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and her colleagues. The investigators provided 272 mothers who had indicated concerns about vaccine safety with a new vaccine-information pamphlet and Vaccine Information Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at one of three time points (prenatal visit, 1-week post partum well child visit, or 2-month vaccine visit) and used written surveys to assess their attitudes and beliefs about immunization before and after the review of materials. At all time points, distribution of the information "significantly improved attitudes about vaccination," the authors wrote. "Allowing adequate time to review vaccine information at any visit may benefit concerned mothers" (Pediatrics 2011;127:S120-6). However, the mothers indicated that they preferred receiving the information before the 2-month vaccination visit.

Dr. Freed and his colleagues involved in the study of sources of vaccine safety information disclosed having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Nicola P. Klein of Stanford (Calif.) University, a coinvestigator in the study of the timing of immunization information to mothers, has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth, Novartis, and MedImmune. Ms. Vannice was supported in part by a National Institutes of Health Research and Training Grant in International Maternal and Child Health. None of the other investigators in that study said they had any relevant financial disclosures. The study was performed in collaboration between the CDC–funded Vaccine Attitudes and Risk Perception (VARP) and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) groups.