"Do-it-yourself": Vaccine rejection and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

In this article, we elucidate a symbiotic relationship between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and rejection of, or hesitancy towards, vaccination. In Fremantle, Western Australia, and Adelaide, South Australia, we conducted in-depth interviews from September 2013-December 2015 with 29 parents who had refused or delayed some or all of their children's vaccines. Our qualitative analysis found that for many, their do-it-yourself ethic and personal agency was enhanced by self-directed CAM use, alongside (sometimes informal) CAM practitioner instruction. Reifying 'the natural,' these parents eschewed vaccines as toxic and adulterating, and embraced CAM as a protective strategy for immune systems before, during and after illness. Users saw CAM as harm-free, and when it came to experiences that non-users might interpret as demonstrating CAM's ineffectiveness, they rationalised to the contrary. They also generally glossed over its profit motive. CAM emerged as part of an expert system countering Western medicine. CAM's faces were trusted and familiar, and its cottage capitalism appeared largely free from the taint of "Big Pharma." A few parents employed a scientific critique of CAM modalities - and a minority were dubious of its profit motive - but others rejected the epistemology underpinning biomedicine, framing CAM as a knowledge not poisoned by avarice; a wisdom whose very evidence-base (anecdote and history) was demeaned by an arrogant scientific process only permitting belief in that which could be quantified. However, all parents engaged with Western medicine for broken bones and, sometimes, medical diagnoses. Our analysis suggests that pro-vaccination health professionals, policymakers and information-providers seeking to address the role of CAM in vaccine rejection face significant challenges due to the epistemic basis of some parents' decisions. However, we make some suggestions for professional practice and policy to enhance trust in vaccination.

Understanding the perceived logic of care by vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-refusing parents: A qualitative study in Australia.

In terms of public health, childhood vaccination programs have benefits that far outweigh risks. However, some parents decide not to vaccinate their children. This paper explores the ways in which such parents talked about the perceived risks and benefits incurred by vaccinating (or not vaccinating) their children. Between 2013-2016 we undertook 29 in-depth interviews with non-vaccinating and/or 'vaccine hesitant' parents in Australia. Interviews were conducted in an open and non-judgmental manner, akin to empathic neutrality. Interviews focused on parents talking about the factors that shaped their decisions not to (or partially) vaccinate their children. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using both inductive and deductive processes. The main themes focus on parental perceptions of: 1. their capacity to reason; 2. their rejection of Western medical epistemology; and 3. their participation in labour intensive parenting practices (which we term salutogenic parenting). Parents engaged in an ongoing search for information about how best to parent their children (capacity to reason), which for many led to questioning/distrust of traditional scientific knowledge (rejection of Western medical epistemology). Salutogenic parenting spontaneously arose in interviews, whereby parents practised health promoting activities which they saw as boosting the natural immunity of their children and protecting them from illness (reducing or negating the perceived need for vaccinations). Salutogenic parenting practices included breastfeeding, eating organic and/or home-grown food, cooking from scratch to reduce preservative consumption and reducing exposure to toxins. We interpret our data as a 'logic of care', which is seen by parents as internally consistent, logically inter-related and inter-dependent. Whilst not necessarily sharing the parents' reasoning, we argue that an understanding of their attitudes towards health and well-being is imperative for any efforts to engage with their vaccine refusal at a policy level.

'Waiting for' and 'waiting in' public and private hospitals: a qualitative study of patient trust in South Australia.

BACKGROUND: Waiting times for hospital appointments, treatment and/or surgery have become a major political and health service problem, leading to national maximum waiting times and policies to reduce waiting times. Quantitative studies have documented waiting times for various types of surgery and longer waiting times in public vs private hospitals. However, very little qualitative research has explored patient experiences of waiting, how this compares between public and private hospitals, and the implications for trust in hospitals and healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to provide a deep understanding of the impact of waiting times on patient trust in public and private hospitals. METHODS: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Data collection occurred in 2012-13, and data were analysed using pre-coding, followed by conceptual and theoretical categorisation. RESULTS: Participants differentiated between experiences of 'waiting for' (e.g. for specialist appointments and surgery) and 'waiting in' (e.g. in emergency departments and outpatient clinics) public and private hospitals. Whilst 'waiting for' public hospitals was longer than private hospitals, this was often justified and accepted by public patients (e.g. due to reduced government funding), therefore it did not lead to distrust of public hospitals. Private patients had shorter 'waiting for' hospital services, increasing their trust in private hospitals and distrust of public hospitals. Public patients also recounted many experiences of longer 'waiting in' public hospitals, leading to frustration and anxiety, although they rarely blamed or distrusted the doctors or nurses, instead blaming an underfunded system and over-worked staff. Doctors and nurses were seen to be doing their best, and therefore trustworthy. CONCLUSION: Although public patients experienced longer 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' public hospitals, it did not lead to widespread distrust in public hospitals or healthcare professionals. Private patients recounted largely positive stories of reduced 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' private hospitals, and generally distrusted public hospitals. The continuing trust by public patients in the face of negative experiences may be understood as a form of exchange trust norm, in which institutional trust is based on base-level expectations of consistency and minimum standards of care and safety. The institutional trust by private patients may be understood as a form of communal trust norm, whereby trust is based on the additional and higher-level expectations of flexibility, reduced waiting and more time with healthcare professionals.

Vaccine Rejecting Parents' Engagement With Expert Systems That Inform Vaccination Programs.

In attempting to provide protection to individuals and communities, childhood immunization has benefits that far outweigh disease risks. However, some parents decide not to immunize their children with some or all vaccines for reasons including lack of trust in governments, health professionals, and vaccine manufacturers. This article employs a theoretical analysis of trust and distrust to explore how twenty-seven parents with a history of vaccine rejection in two Australian cities view the expert systems central to vaccination policy and practice. Our data show how perceptions of the profit motive generate distrust in the expert systems pertaining to vaccination. Our participants perceived that pharmaceutical companies had a pernicious influence over the systems driving vaccination: research, health professionals, and government. Accordingly, they saw vaccine recommendations in conflict with the interests of their child and "the system" underscored by malign intent, even if individual representatives of this system were not equally tainted. This perspective was common to parents who declined all vaccines and those who accepted some. We regard the differences between these parents-and indeed the differences between vaccine decliners and those whose Western medical epistemology informs reflexive trust-as arising from the internalization of countering views, which facilitates nuance.

A qualitative study of patient (dis)trust in public and private hospitals: the importance of choice and pragmatic acceptance for trust considerations in South Australia.

BACKGROUND: This paper explores the nature and reasoning for (dis)trust in Australian public and private hospitals. Patient trust increases uptake of, engagement with and optimal outcomes from healthcare services and is therefore central to health practice, policy and planning. METHODS: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). RESULTS: 'Private patients' made active choices about both their hospital and doctor, playing the role of the 'consumer', where trust and choice went hand in hand. The reputation of the doctor and hospital were key drivers of trust, under the assumption that a better reputation equates with higher quality care. However, making a choice to trust a doctor led to personal responsibility and the additional requirement for self-trust. 'Public patients' described having no choice in their hospital or doctor. They recognised 'problems' in the public healthcare system but accepted and even excused these as 'part of the system'. In order to justify their trust, they argued that doctors in public hospitals tried to do their best in difficult circumstances, thereby deserving of trust. This 'resigned trust' may stem from a lack of alternatives for free health care and thus a dependence on the system. CONCLUSION: These two contrasting models of trust within the same locality point to the way different configurations of healthcare systems, hospital experiences, insurance coverage and related forms of 'choice' combine to shape different formats of trust, as patients act to manage their vulnerability within these contexts.

Disaster preparedness and response: challenges for Australian public health nurses - a literature review.

To date, Australia has not had to respond to a nationwide catastrophic event. However, over the past decade, heat waves, bushfires, cyclones, and floods have significantly challenged Australia's disaster preparedness and the surge capacity of local and regional health systems. Given that disaster events are predicted to increase in impact and frequency, the health workforce needs to be prepared for and able to respond effectively to a disaster. To be effective, nurses must be clear regarding their role in a disaster and be able to articulate the value and relevance of this role to communities and the professionals they work with. Since almost all disasters will exert some impact on public health, it is expedient to prepare the public health nursing workforce within Australia. This paper highlights issues currently facing disaster nursing and focuses on the challenges for Australian public health nurses responding to and preparing for disasters within Australia. The paper specifically addresses public health nurses' awareness regarding their roles in disaster preparation and response, given their unique skills and central position in public health.

Interrater reliability of injury coding in the Queensland Trauma Registry.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to accurately code injury event details and use the Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score to group injuries according to severity, underpins the audit and review activities of the trauma registries throughout the world. In the interests of transparency and benchmarking between registries, we aimed to assess the interrater reliability of coding in the Queensland Trauma Registry. METHODS: One hundred and twenty injury cases were randomly selected from the Queensland Trauma Registry database, stratified by hospital, severity and the coder who originally coded the chart. Cases were then recoded by six coders employed by the Queensland Trauma Registry. Coding was carried out by all raters simultaneously and independently. RESULTS: Interrater agreement between coders was high for external cause, intent, and place of injury with kappa scores for all interrater pairs being greater than 0.80, 0.58 and 0.44. Agreement between the six raters for Injury Severity Score was found to be very high (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of coding in the Queensland Trauma Registry is sufficiently high to ensure that quality data are available for research, audit and review.