Skip Navigation



Family Practice Advance Access published online on July 15, 2005
Family Practice, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi066
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/6/658    most recent
cmi066v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gellatly, J.
Right arrow Articles by Tiliopoulos, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gellatly, J.
Right arrow Articles by Tiliopoulos, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Received October 21, 2004
Accepted June 20, 2005

Article

Predicting parents' decisions on MMR immunisation: a mixed method investigation

Judith Gellatly 1, Chris McVittie 2*, and Niko Tiliopoulos 2

1 School of Nursing, University of Manchester, Edinburgh, UK
2 School of Social Sciences, Media & Communication, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Chris McVittie, E-mail: cmcvittie{at}qmuc.ac.uk


  Abstract

Background. Increasing uptake rates for MMR vaccination requires an understanding of factors leading parents to decide for and against vaccination, particularly in the light of recent developments.

Objective. We investigated factors relevant to immunising and non-immunising parents and the extent to which these factors predicted their decisions.

Methods. The study was conducted in Edinburgh, UK. A two-stage mixed method design was used. Delphi technique elicited parents' views of factors relevant to MMR immunisation. Twenty-six factors identified as relevant were incorporated into a final questionnaire. Using cluster sampling, the final questionnaire was distributed to parents recruited through a group of local nurseries. 110 parents participated: eighty (72.7%) had had their child MMR vaccinated, thirty (27.3%) had refused the vaccine. The factors in the final questionnaire were analysed against vaccination status using a direct binary logistic regression model.

Results. Four factors significantly predicted vaccination status, (prediction toward ‘yes vaccination’). These were the influence of current research (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.07-0.51), the helpfulness of leaflets and information packs (OR = 3.27, 95% CI = 1.38-7.75), the importance of eradication of rubella (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.01-5.78), and the importance attached to the risk of adverse reactions (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.48-0.87).

Conclusions. Differences between immunising and non-immunising parents lie in the importance attached to four relevant factors. Excluding risk of adverse reactions, these factors have not been previously identified as salient and require to be explored further. Health advice to parents should highlight the identified importance attached to eradicating rubella and explicitly reflect research findings.

Keywords: Attitudes; immunization; MMR vaccine; parents.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Fam PractHome page
B. Delaney
Family Practice and the new era of electronic publishing
Fam. Pract., December 1, 2005; 22(6): 581 - 582.
[Full Text] [PDF]

E-letters:

Read all E-letters

Good enough reasons?
Alan Challoner
Family Practice, 28 Nov 2005 [Full text]

Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.