Université de Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Nancy, France.
Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France; ORS PACA, Observatoire régional de la santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Marseille, France.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Aug;24(8):858-864. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.10.021. Epub 2017 Nov 24.
We aimed to study general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of vaccines that have been a subject of controversy in France.
A cross-sectional survey in 2014 asked a representative national sample of GPs, randomly selected from the exhaustive database of health professionals in France, about their perceptions of the likelihood of serious adverse events potentially associated with six different vaccines: for two of them the association was based on some scientific evidence, whereas for the other four this is not the case. We performed a cluster analysis to construct a typology of GPs' perceptions about the likelihood of these potential six associations. Factors associated with certain clusters of interest were identified using logistic regression models.
Overall, 1582 GPs participated in the questionnaire survey (1582/1712 GPs who agreed to participate, 92%). Cluster analysis identified four groups of GPs according to their susceptibility to vaccine controversies: 1) limited susceptibility to controversies (52%); 2) overall unsure, but rejected the association between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis (32%); 3) highly susceptible to controversies (11%); and 4) unsure (5%). We found that GPs who occasionally practised alternative medicine (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.65-4.45), and those who considered information provided by mass media as reliable (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.65-3.99) were more susceptible to controversies.
GPs had different profiles of susceptibility to vaccination controversies, and most of their perceptions of these controversies were not based on scientific evidence.
我们旨在研究全科医生（GP）对法国存在争议的疫苗的看法。
2014 年进行了一项横断面调查，对从法国卫生专业人员的详尽数据库中随机选择的代表性全国 GP 样本，就他们对可能与六种不同疫苗相关的严重不良事件的可能性的看法进行了调查：其中两种疫苗的相关性基于一些科学证据，而对于另外四种疫苗则不然。我们进行了聚类分析，以构建 GP 对这六种潜在关联的可能性的看法的分类。使用逻辑回归模型确定与某些感兴趣的聚类相关的因素。
共有 1582 名 GP 参与了问卷调查（1582/1712 名同意参与的 GP，占 92%）。聚类分析根据他们对疫苗争议的易感性，将 GP 分为四组：1）对争议的易感性有限（52%）；2）总体上不确定，但拒绝乙肝疫苗与多发性硬化症之间的关联（32%）；3）高度易受争议影响（11%）；和 4）不确定（5%）。我们发现，偶尔从事替代医学的 GP（OR 2.71，95%CI 1.65-4.45），以及认为大众媒体提供的信息可靠的 GP（OR 2.04，95%CI 1.65-3.99）更容易受到争议的影响。
GP 对疫苗争议的易感性存在不同的特征，他们对这些争议的大多数看法并非基于科学证据。
