Cited by 215Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyRisk Perception and ManagementEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

‘MMR talk’ and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton

Open access
Poltorak, Mike, Leach, Melissa, Fairhead, James, Cassell, Jackie·2005·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

In the context of the high-profile controversy that has unfolded in the UK around the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and its possible adverse effects, this paper explores how parents in Brighton, southern England, are thinking about MMR for their own children. Research focusing on parents' engagement with MMR has been dominated by analysis of the proximate influences on their choices, and in particular scientific and media information, which have led health policy to focus on information and education campaigns. This paper reports ethnographic work including narratives by mothers in Brighton. Our work questions such reasoning in showing how wider personal and social issues shape parents' immunisation actions. The narratives by mothers show how practices around MMR are shaped by personal histories, by birth experiences and related feelings of control, by family health histories, by their readings of their child's health and particular strengths and vulnerabilities, by particular engagements with health services, by processes building or undermining confidence, and by friendships and conversations with others, which are themselves shaped by wider social differences and transformations. Although many see vaccination as a personal decision which must respond to the particularities of a child's immune system, 'MMR talk', which affirms these conceptualisations, has become a social phenomenon in itself. These perspectives suggest ways in which people's engagements with MMR reflect wider changes in their relations with science and the state.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The individualized approach to vaccine safety has been observed in social scientific research into parental attitudes towards vaccination.

    “This individualized approach to the question of vaccine safety has been observed in social scientific research into parental attitudes towards vaccination (Evans et al. 2001; Poltorak et al. 2005; Leach and Fairhead 2007; Yaqub et al. 2014).”

    From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Poltorak et al. 2005

  • Leach and Fairhead found that detailed reflection by parents on their child's particular strength or vulnerability, immune system characteristics, and family health history underlay concern about MMR or vaccinations in general.

    “Leach and Fairhead found that what often followed from this commonly held view was detailed reflection by parents on their child's particular strength or vulnerability, immune system characteristics, and family health history, all of which underlay concern about MMR or vaccinations in general (Leach and Fairhead 2007, 57; see also Poltorak et al. 2005).”

    From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Poltorak et al. 2005

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Poltorak, M., Leach, M., Fairhead, J., & Cassell, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Leach, Melissa
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-08
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
709-719
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055442465
Cited by
215
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
MMR vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella, parental decision-making, vaccine controversy, motherhood narratives, immunization, public trust in science, social influences on health, Brighton
MeSH terms
Contraindications, Adult, Anthropology, Cultural, Attitude to Health, Child, Child Welfare, Child, Preschool, Choice Behavior, England, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Mothers, Vaccination, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine, Narration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review