CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 115Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyRisk Perception and ManagementMisinformation and Its Impacts

Tracking mothers’ attitudes to MMR immunisation 1996–2006

Smith, Alan, Yarwood, Joanne, Salisbury, David M.·2007·Vaccine
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.02.071
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of surveys that have tracked mothers' attitudes towards MMR over the period 1996-2006. The main aim was to demonstrate how attitudes in relation to MMR have evolved over the last 10 years incorporating the periods of time before, during and after the height of the MMR controversy within the UK. MMR vaccine remains the number one 'top of mind' vaccination issue for parents. The proportion of parents believing MMR to be a greater risk than the diseases it protects against has fallen from 24% in 2002 to 14% in 2006. The proportion of 'hard-core rejectors' of MMR vaccine remains stable at 6%. There has been a gradual and sustained increase in the proportion of parents across all social groups saying MMR was completely safe/slight risk rising from 60% in 2002 to a current level of 74%. There now appears to be a sustained move away from fears over MMR safety and belief in the unfounded link to autism towards a more positive perception of the vaccine.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.02.071

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Smith, A., Yarwood, J., & Salisbury, D. M.
Corresponding author
Salisbury, David M.
ORCID
Salisbury, David M.
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
25
Issue
20
Pages
3996-4002
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.02.071
OpenAlex
W2034911866
Semantic Scholar
96f8fbd47c2ccea4eb72f0fea3d1900a477264fe
Cited by
115
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
MMR vaccine, maternal attitudes, vaccine safety beliefs, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal, parental beliefs, childhood immunization
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Interviews as Topic, Mothers, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

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