Cited by 170Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareRisk Perception and Management

“Nature Does Things Well, Why Should We Interfere?”: Vaccine Hesitancy Among Mothers

Dubé, Eve, Vivion, Maryline, Sauvageau, Chantal, Gagneur, Arnaud, Gagnon, Raymonde, Guay, Maryse·2016·Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

Parents’ decision to use vaccination services is complex and multi-factorial. Of particular interest are “vaccine-hesitant” parents who are in the middle of the continuum between vaccine acceptance and refusal. The objective of this qualitative longitudinal study was to better understand why mothers choose to vaccinate—or not—their newborns. Fifty-six pregnant mothers living in different areas of Quebec (Canada) were interviewed. These interviews gathered information on mothers’ views about health and vaccination. Almost half of the mothers were categorized as vaccine-hesitant. A second interview was conducted with these mothers 3 to 11 months after birth to look at their actual decision and behavior concerning vaccination. Our results show the heterogeneity of factors influencing vaccine decision making. Although the majority of vaccine-hesitant mothers finally chose to follow the recommended vaccine schedule for their child, they were still ambivalent and they continued to question their decision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732315573207

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Use of saturation to indicate ability to extrapolate or generalisation could indicate confusion about the meaning and purpose of saturation.

    “The use of saturation in these two cases could perhaps indicate a degree of confusion in some studies about the meaning of saturation and its purpose”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dubé, E., Vivion, M., Sauvageau, C., Gagneur, A., Gagnon, R., & Guay, M.
Affiliations
  • Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  • Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec (CA)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (CA)
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2015-02-23
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
411-425
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2091327588
Cited by
170
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Université Laval
  • Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (115012_1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
vaccine hesitancy, childhood immunization, vaccine decision-making, neonatal vaccination, vaccine refusal, vaccine acceptance, pregnant women, ambivalence, vaccine schedule adherence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Longitudinal Studies, Middle Aged, Mothers, Quebec, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

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