Cited by 100Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcarePublic Health Policies and Education

Childhood Vaccination Mandates: Scope, Sanctions, Severity, Selectivity, and Salience

Open access
ATTWELL, KATIE, C. NAVIN, MARK·2019·The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

Policy Points: We offer the first systematic conceptual framework for analyzing the operation of mandatory vaccination policies. Our multicomponent framework facilitates synthesis judgments on single issues of pressing concern to policymakers, in particular, how mandatory vaccination policies motivate people to vaccinate. We consider the impact of each component of our framework on persons who remain unvaccinated for different reasons, including complacency, social disadvantage, and more or less committed forms of refusal. Context: In response to outbreaks of vaccine‐preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as “vaccine mandates.” However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context‐specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations. Methods: In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real‐world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope(which vaccines to require),sanctions and severity(which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity(how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates). Findings: A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute—salience—which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated. Conclusion: Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-0009.12417

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ATTWELL, K., & C. NAVIN, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Oakland University
Corresponding author
ATTWELL, KATIE
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-09-16
Volume
97
Issue
4
Pages
978-1014
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
OpenAlex
W2973401564
Cited by
100
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
vaccine refusal, vaccine hesitancy, vaccination compliance, sanctions and penalties, exemptions, social deprivation, vaccine-preventable diseases, policy taxonomy, coercion, public health policy

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