‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK
Open accessAbstract
Sociological interest in vaccination has recently increased, largely in response to media coverage of concerns over the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine. The resulting body of research highlights the importance of risk and trust in understanding parental and professional engagement with vaccination. To date, only limited attention has been paid to organised parental groups that campaign against aspects of vaccination policy. This paper reports findings from a qualitative study of contemporary groups in the UK, and develops three main lines of argument. First, these actors are best analysed as ‘Vaccine Critical groups’ and include Radical and Reformist types. Second, Vaccine Critical groups discursively resist vaccination through a reframing that constructs risk as unknown and non‐random. Third, trust as faith is negatively contrasted with the empowerment that is promised to result from taking personal responsibility for health and decision‐making. Whilst representing a challenge to aspects of vaccination policy, this study confirms that the groups are involved in the articulation and promotion of other dominant discourses. These findings have implications for wider sociological debates about risk and trust in relation to health.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Vaccine concerns and resistance have been previously tied to the critical approach to public understanding of science by Hobson-West and Leach and Fairhead.
“Vaccine concerns and resistance have been previously tied to this critical approach to public understanding of science by Hobson-West (2003; 2007) and Leach and Fairhead (2007).”
From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Hobson-West 2007
Parent advocacy groups like JABS engage parents on their own terms.
“Parent advocacy groups like JABS, on the other hand, engage parents on their own terms.”
From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as HobsonWest 2007
Cites
1 retracted
Wakefield, A., Murch, S., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A., Thomson, M., Harvey, P., et al. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11096-0 · Cited by 3,006 · see citing works
RetractedEmbodied health movements: new approaches to social movements in health
Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello‐Frosch, R., & Gasior Altman, R. (2004) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00378.x · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vaccine Hesitancy: Clarifying a Theoretical Framework for an Ambiguous Notion
Peretti-Watel, P., Ward, J. K., Schulz, W. S., Verger, P., & Larson, H. J. (2015) · PLoS Currents · doi:10.1371/currents.outbreaks.6844c80ff9f5b273f34c91f71b7fc289 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy
Goldenberg, M. J. (2016) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00223 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hobson‐West, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hobson‐West, Pru
- ORCID
- Hobson‐West, Pru
- Venue
- Sociology of Health & Illness
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 198-215
- ISSN
- 0141-9889 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9566
- OpenAlex
- W2081434432
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 6.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Sociology of Health & Illness (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Leverhulme Trust
- 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
- childhood immunization, anti-vaccine movement, risk perception, parental resistance, vaccination policy, reframing, personal responsibility for health, health discourse
- MeSH terms
- Child, Consumer Organizations, Decision Making, United Kingdom, Health Policy, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Parents, Perception, Politics, Treatment Refusal, Immunization Programs, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine, Dissent and Disputes, Trust
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