McNaughton Rebekah Jayne, Adams Jean, Shucksmith Janet
Health and Social Care Institute, School of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough TS1 3BA, United Kingdom; Fuse (UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE2 4AX, United Kingdom.
Fuse (UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE2 4AX, United Kingdom; Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Vaccine. 2016 Apr 27;34(19):2259-66. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.009. Epub 2016 Mar 12.
Since the 1990 s strenuous attempts have been made to rebuild trust in childhood immunisations. This study aimed to understand if financial incentives (FI) or quasi-mandatory schemes (QMS), e.g. mandating immunisations for entry to universal services such as day care or school, might be acceptable interventions to increase immunisations uptake for preschool children.
Parents and carers of preschool children (n=91); health and other professionals (n=18); and those responsible for developing and commissioning immunisation services (n=6) took part in the study. Qualitative methods were employed to explore the acceptability of FI/QMS with stakeholders. Framework analysis was used to develop a coding framework that was applied to the whole dataset. Interpretations of the emergent themes were verified between researchers and presented to the project's Parent Reference Group to ensure coherence and relevance.
(1) FI: parents and professionals felt introducing FI was inappropriate. It was acknowledged FI may encourage families living in disadvantage to prioritise immunisation, but unintended consequences could outweigh any advantage. FI essentially changes behaviour into a cash transaction which many equated to bribery that could inadvertently create inequalities. (2) QMS: parents and professionals highlighted the positives of introducing QMS, stating it felt natural, fair and less likely to create inequality. Despite QMS' potential to positively impact on uptake there were concerns about the implementation and workability of such schemes.
FI for preschool immunisation may not be acceptable, within a UK context. Introducing FI could have detrimental effects on uptake if it were associated with bribery and coercion. Quasi-mandatory schemes, mandating immunisation for universal service entry, was the most acceptable option and could contribute to the normalising of immunisation. Future work would be needed to assess how this could be successfully implemented and if it did indeed increase uptake.
自20世纪90年代以来,人们一直在努力重建对儿童免疫接种的信任。本研究旨在了解经济激励措施(FI)或准强制计划(QMS),例如要求儿童在进入日托或学校等公共服务机构时进行免疫接种,是否可能是增加学龄前儿童免疫接种率的可接受干预措施。
学龄前儿童的家长和照料者(n = 91)、卫生及其他专业人员(n = 18)以及负责制定和委托免疫接种服务的人员(n = 6)参与了该研究。采用定性方法探讨利益相关者对经济激励措施/准强制计划的可接受性。运用框架分析法制定了一个编码框架,并将其应用于整个数据集。研究人员之间对新出现主题的解释进行了验证,并提交给项目的家长咨询小组,以确保连贯性和相关性。
(1)经济激励措施:家长和专业人员认为引入经济激励措施不合适。大家承认,经济激励措施可能会鼓励生活处于不利地位的家庭优先进行免疫接种,但意外后果可能会超过任何好处。经济激励措施本质上是将行为转变为现金交易,许多人将其等同于贿赂,这可能会无意中造成不平等。(2)准强制计划:家长和专业人员强调了引入准强制计划的积极方面,称其感觉自然、公平,且不太可能造成不平等。尽管准强制计划有可能对免疫接种率产生积极影响,但人们对这类计划的实施和可行性存在担忧。
在英国的背景下,针对学龄前儿童免疫接种的经济激励措施可能不可接受。如果与贿赂和强制相关联,引入经济激励措施可能会对免疫接种率产生不利影响。要求儿童在进入公共服务机构时进行免疫接种的准强制计划是最可接受的选择,并且有助于使免疫接种常态化。未来需要开展工作,以评估如何能够成功实施这一计划,以及它是否确实能提高免疫接种率。