A qualitative meta-synthesis on how autonomy promotes vaccine rejection or delay among health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of the overwhelming evidence that highlights the effectiveness of routine vaccination, an increasing number of people are refusing to follow recommended vaccination schedules. While the majority of research in this area has focussed on vaccine hesitancy in parents, there is little research on the factors that promote vaccine hesitancy in health care providers (HCPs). Identifying factors that promote vaccine hesitancy in HCPs is essential because it may help broaden our understanding of vaccine hesitancy in patients. Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to review 21 studies and examine how professional autonomy and risk perception may promote vaccine acceptance, rejection and delay in physicians and nurses. We found that vaccine hesitant nurses and physicians shared similar views towards vaccines; both groups believed that their decision to vaccinate was separate from their role as an HCP. This belief comprised of three themes: decisional autonomy, personal risk perception and alternatives to vaccination. Both groups believed that mandatory vaccine policies reduced their ability to decide whether vaccination was in their best interests. We argue that decisional autonomy may weaken risk perception of disease, which in turn may encourage beliefs and behaviours that reinforce a 'hero persona' that reduces appropriate preventive and hygiene measures. We employ the Health Belief Model to discuss the crucial role that risk perceptions may play in reinforcing autonomy in vaccine hesitant physician and nurses. We conclude this paper by providing a set of recommendations that aim to improve the decision-making process surrounding mandatory vaccinations for HCPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".