New S J, Senior M L
Department of Applied Social Science, Cartmel College, University of Lancaster, England.
Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(4):509-18. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90333-8.
This paper presents qualitative data to emerge from a largely quantitative case-control study of the uptake of infant immunisation in two District Health Authorities in the North West of England. It was hypothesised that problems arising from transport and time-space constraints would distinguish the parents of those children who had missed appointments from those who had attended. However, most of these difficulties were experienced equally by both groups and so could not solely account for different immunisation behaviour. Rather, the groups could be distinguished further by their differing attitudes towards, and knowledge of, infant immunisation based on a wide range of personal experiences. The paper argues that it is a mistake to label parental decision-making as 'irrational' when one takes into account the interaction between personal experience, differing levels of advice and the impact of constraints, notably gender role constraints, as they affect women with young children.
本文呈现了从一项主要为定量研究的案例对照研究中得出的定性数据,该研究聚焦于英格兰西北部两个地区卫生当局的婴儿免疫接种情况。研究假设,交通和时空限制所引发的问题会使错过预约接种的儿童家长与按时接种的家长有所不同。然而,两组家长在很大程度上都同样经历了这些困难,所以这些困难并不能单独解释不同的免疫接种行为。相反,基于广泛的个人经历,两组家长在对待婴儿免疫接种的态度和相关知识方面存在差异,这进一步区分了他们。本文认为,当考虑到个人经历、不同程度的建议以及各种限制因素(尤其是性别角色限制,因为这些因素会影响有幼儿的女性)之间的相互作用时,将父母的决策行为贴上“非理性”的标签是错误的。