![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In France, for many vaccines, vaccine coverage is below the 95% cutoff. One reason is mistrust from a growing proportion of the general population toward vaccination. In 2017, a new law was promulgated, extending the number of mandatory vaccines from 3 to 11. Our objectives were twofold: to assess the population’s perception of the extension of mandatory vaccination (MV) 1 year after its introduction, and to evaluate how it affected their vaccine confidence. We performed a descriptive cross-sectional study using a questionnaire for adults who consulted a family physician in south-east France. Overall, 453 questionnaires were analyzed. The median age of respondents (female 78.4%) was 43 years; 85% had children. On a 0 to 100 scale, respondents evaluated their confidence in vaccination at a median of 75 (IQR 50–90). For 60% of respondents, MV was a good public health measure; for 47%, it was poorly explained by the Ministry of Health; for 46%, it was a violation of personal freedom; and for 49%, it resulted from pharmaceutical industry lobbying. When asked about the influence of the extension of MV, only 26.2% declared that it had changed (a little/a lot) their opinion, and this change was for the majority (74.7%) toward less confidence. Respondents who declared an increased level of confidence already had a better perception of vaccination (and inversely). In conclusion, our results show that MV only changed the perception of vaccination among a small proportion of respondents. For most respondents, MV reinforced their initial views about vaccination.
Authors contributions
O.E. initiated the study. A.M, L.G., and O.E. contributed to the study design. A.M., L.G., and O.E. contributed to the implementation and supervision of the study. O.E. analyzed the data and takes responsibility for the accuracy of the data analysis. M.L.M. and O.E. drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availibility of data and materials
The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Consent to participate
All participants were informed of the anonymous nature of the study and their freedom to participate or not. Their participation had no influence on any medical treatment provided.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Ethical approval
The protocol and questionnaire were submitted to the Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital ethical committee and received a favorable opinion on February 13, 2019.