Search

There currently are no mandatory vaccines in Switzerland. However, Swiss federal legislation allows for vaccination mandates in settings where the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups is high, such as healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with vulnerable patients. Since HCPs are trusted information sources, a priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, and potentially subjected to mandates, we investigated HCP perspectives on mandates.A national online survey was administered to HCPs (October 2020-March 2021), including vaccine mandates questions concerning patients (measles) and HCPs (influenza). We qualitatively investigated HCP mandate perspectives through: (1) 34 interviews with HCPs, HCP professional society representatives, and health authorities; (2) a focus group discussion (FGD) with complementary medicine (CM) and biomedical physicians, and Swiss Federal Vaccination Commission members.1933 participants (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives) responded to the survey. Quantitative results show all professional groups preferred shared parent-HCP measles vaccine decisions (65%, 54%, 50%, 48%, respectively; p for trend 0.001). Midwives (87%) and nurses (70%) preferred individual influenza vaccination decisions for HCPs, while physicians (49%) and pharmacists (44%) preferred shared employee-employer decisions (p for trend 0.001). Physicians (p .001) and pharmacists (p .01) with CM training favored individual influenza vaccination decisions. Qualitative results show general HCP opposition to vaccine mandates, mainly because participants argued how other approaches, such as HCP training and better information, could encourage uptake. Arguments against COVID-19 mandates included insufficiently documented long-term safety/efficacy data. From participants' perspectives, mandated vaccination should be used as a last resort. Some participants expressed fear that with mandates, notably for influenza and COVID-19, some HCPs might leave their jobs. HCPs were unsure what vaccine mandates would concretely look like in practice, particularly regarding sanctions for non-compliance and enforcement.In Switzerland, HCPs generally were opposed to vaccination mandates. Clarity and guidance are needed from health authorities to better inform discussions around vaccine mandates.

ObjectivesWe aimed to provide a detailed characterisation of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine awareness, knowledge and information sources in the HPV vaccine decision-making process of youth, both male and female, in Switzerland.DesignWith a mixed-method study design, we conducted quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews, which lasted 20–45 min.Setting and participantsWe recruited participants, 15–26 years of age, in physicians’ offices, in a local sexual health clinic, and during military enlistment. We administered quantitative questionnaires to 997 youth participants (585 male, 412 female) and conducted qualitative interviews with 31 youth (17 male, 14 female).Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe assessed HPV vaccine awareness, knowledge, information sources and vaccination status.ResultsIn the study’s quantitative component, 108 (20%) male and 262 (65%) female participants had received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine. 697 (70%) participants were knowledgeable about the HPV vaccine. Females were more likely to be knowledgeable than males (342/412 (83%) vs 355/585 (61%); pConclusionsDespite a male HPV vaccine recommendation being made >4 years prior to the data collection, HPV vaccine knowledge was higher among females than males, and a female-gendered perception of HPV vaccine remains prevalent. Internet and social media were minor HPV vaccine information sources. Study findings demonstrate that HPV knowledge matters for HPV vaccine uptake and suggest that we should improve HPV information quality and access for youth, particularly by tailoring knowledge campaigns to young men.

This article examines the relationships between biomedicine, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and parents' vaccination decision-making in Switzerland. Our empirical evidence sheds light on an understudied phenomenon-parents switching from one doctor to another provider (often one offering CAM services) around issues that arise during vaccination consultations. This is important to understand since CAM is used by 25%-50% of the Swiss population and is integrated into the Swiss health-care system when offered by biomedically trained medical doctors with additional CAM training. Qualitative data gathered from in-depth semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 30) and ethnographic observations of vaccination consultations (N = 16 biomedical consultations, N = 18 CAM consultations) demonstrate how there was not always a clear-cut, direct relationship between (non)vaccination and parents' use of CAM and/or biomedicine. Borrowing from Hirschman (Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Harvard Univ. Press, 1970), we frame our analysis by using the concepts of exit, voice and loyalty to describe parents' provider selection and vaccination decision-making process, although only four families in the sample described switching solely because of vaccination-related issues. Findings add to vaccine decision-making literature by describing and analysing the underdiscussed provider-switching phenomenon and by demonstrating the importance of parents' experiences of trust, affect and choice in vaccination consultations as they pursue the best health outcomes for their children.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to better understand parental trust in and satisfaction with information sources and medical providers regarding decision making about childhood vaccines.SettingThe study was part of a Swiss national research programme investigating vaccine hesitancy and underimmunisation.ParticipantsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 37 providers and 30 parents, observed 34 vaccination consultations, and then conducted quantitative surveys with 130 providers (both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) oriented and biomedically oriented) and 1390 parents.Main outcome measuresParticipants’ vaccination information sources used in their decision-making process, parents’ trust in and satisfaction with these sources and providers.ResultsBased on the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines scale, we considered 501 parents as vaccine-hesitant (VH) and 889 parents as non-VH. Whereas both groups mentioned providers as the most trusted source of information, VH-parents were less likely to mention paediatricians (N=358 (71%) vs N=755 (85%)) and public health authorities (N=101 (20%) vs N=333 (37%)) than non-VH-parents. VH-parents were more likely to have consulted another provider (N=196 (39%) vs N=173 (19%)) than non-VH-parents, to express less satisfaction with both their primary (N=342 (82%) vs N=586 (91%)) and other providers (N=82 (42%) vs N=142 (82%)) and less trust in their primary (N=368 (88%) vs N=632 (98%)) and other providers (N=108 (55%) vs N=146 (84%)). VH-parents were less likely to be satisfied with their biomedical primary provider than non-VH-parents (100 (69%) vs 467 (91%)). However, when the primary provider was CAM-oriented, there were similar levels of satisfaction among both groups (237 (89%) VH-parents vs 118 (89%) non-VH-parents). All differences were significant (pConclusionsWhile the provider remains the main information source, VH parents turn to additional sources and providers, which is likely related to VH parents being rather dissatisfied with and distrusting in obtained information and their provider.EthicsThe local ethics committee (Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz, EKNZ; project ID number 2017-00725) approved the study.

This article reports on our qualitative inquiry into the meanings biomedically trained doctors in Switzerland attach to treating vaccine hesitant (VH) and underimmunized patients. With support from social science literature on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ patients and doctors, we explore how both doctors and patients cross the boundaries of these conceptual categories in situations involving vaccine hesitancy and underimmunization. The doctors we interviewed (N = 20) and observed (N = 16 observations, subsample of 6 doctors from the interview sample) described how they screened, measured, and diagnosed patients' levels of vaccine hesitancy. Our results emphasize the meanings doctors associated with counseling hesitant patients, especially while managing their own professional responsibilities, legitimacy, and reputations among colleagues and patients. Doctors' discourses constructed the figure of ‘problem patients,’ characterized through their (potential) non-adherence to vaccination recommendations, desire for lengthy consultations and individualized counseling, and dogmatic ideologies running contra to biomedicine. Discussions around the dilemmas faced by doctors in vaccination consultations brings to the fore several key, yet underdiscussed, paradoxes concerning VH, patient-doctor relationships, and the constructs of ‘good’/‘bad’ doctors and patients. These paradoxes revolve around expectations in Western societies for ‘good’ patients to be autonomous health-information seekers and active participants in clinical encounters, which research shows to be the case for many VH and underimmunizing individuals. However, in the eyes of many vaccination advocates and proponents of biomedical approaches, VH patients become ‘bad’ patients thru their risk of non-adherence, which has implications for the population at large. In these consultations, doctors find themselves conflicted around the expectations to promote vaccination while, at the same time, being active listeners and good communicators with those who question their biomedical training and legitimacy. Understanding these paradoxes highlights the need to better support HCPs in addressing VH in clinical practice.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers' roles in parents' decision-making about vaccinations for their children have only recently begun receiving research attention, despite studies showing CAM to be used by 25-50% of the population in Western countries. This article examines how CAM practitioners discuss vaccinations with parents in Switzerland, with a focus on childhood vaccinations and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations. We describe how the CAM providers we interviewed (N = 17) and observed during vaccination consultations (N = 18 observations with 5 providers) employed individualized approaches to vaccination. Triangulation of qualitative evidence from interviews and observations allowed us to analyze their discourses and descriptions of experiences (i.e. what they said) and their practices in situ (i.e. what they did). Evidence gathered shows that practitioners framed vaccination decisions as choices at individual and family levels rather than focusing on public health benefits and consequences. They articulated their perspectives in terms of personal clinical experiences and parents' wishes, concerns, and contexts. Such findings challenge recurring narratives depicting CAM providers as categorically anti-vaccination and suggest that approaches to address vaccine hesitancy in clinical practice could benefit from communication and relational approaches similar to those demonstrated by participants in this study. Such approaches include taking time to understand parents' wishes, involving them in vaccination decisions, and taking their concerns seriously.

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy is a complex public health issue referring to concerns about the safety, efficacy or need for vaccination. Relatively little is known about vaccine hesitancy in Switzerland. This ongoing study (2017–2021) focuses on biomedical and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers and their patients since healthcare professionals play important roles in vaccination decision-making. This national research programme seeks to assess the sociocultural determinants of vaccine hesitancy regarding childhood and human papillomavirus vaccines in Switzerland. We aim to provide a detailed characterisation of vaccine hesitancy, including CAM and biomedical perspectives, patient–provider interactions, and sociocultural factors, to establish the mediating effects of vaccine hesitancy on underimmunisation, and to design an intervention to improve vaccination communication and counselling among physicians, parents and adolescents.Methods and analysisOur transdisciplinary team employs a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study design. We have established a network of more than 150 medical providers across Switzerland, including more than 40 CAM practitioners. For the qualitative component, we conduct interviews with parents, youth, and biomedical and CAM providers and observations of vaccination consultations and school vaccination information sessions. For the quantitative component, a sample of 1350 parents of young children and 722 young adults (15–26 years) and their medical providers respond to questionnaires. We measure vaccine hesitancy with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines 15-item survey and review vaccination certificates to assess vaccination status. We administer additional questions based on findings from qualitative research, addressing communication with medical providers, vaccine information sources and perceptions of risk control vis-à-vis vaccine-preventable diseases. The questionnaires capture sociodemographics, political views, religion and spirituality, and moral foundations.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the local ethics committee. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to healthcare professionals, researchers and the public via conferences and public presentations.