Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A 'step too far' or 'perfect sense'? A qualitative study of British adults' views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports
Martine Stead; Allison Ford; Douglas Eadie; Hannah Biggs; Claire Elliott; Michael Ussher; Helen Bedford; Kathryn Angus; Kate Hunt; Anne Marie MacKintosh; Curtis Jessop; Andy MacGregor.
Afiliação
  • Martine Stead; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling
  • Allison Ford; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling
  • Douglas Eadie; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling
  • Hannah Biggs; The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
  • Claire Elliott; The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
  • Michael Ussher; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling and Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London
  • Helen Bedford; Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London
  • Kathryn Angus; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling
  • Kate Hunt; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling
  • Anne Marie MacKintosh; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling
  • Curtis Jessop; The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
  • Andy MacGregor; The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22270458
ABSTRACT
BackgroundDebate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. MethodsQualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n=50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. FindingsSix themes were identified in participants narratives concerning mandates (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create vaccine apartheid; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.
Licença
cc_by_nc_nd
Texto completo: Disponível Coleções: Preprints Base de dados: medRxiv Tipo de estudo: Estudo observacional / Pesquisa qualitativa Idioma: Inglês Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Preprint
Texto completo: Disponível Coleções: Preprints Base de dados: medRxiv Tipo de estudo: Estudo observacional / Pesquisa qualitativa Idioma: Inglês Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Preprint
...