↓ Skip to main content

Vaccine Rejecting Parents’ Engagement With Expert Systems That Inform Vaccination Programs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 658)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Vaccine Rejecting Parents’ Engagement With Expert Systems That Inform Vaccination Programs
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-016-9756-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katie Attwell, Julie Leask, Samantha B. Meyer, Philippa Rokkas, Paul Ward

Abstract

In attempting to provide protection to individuals and communities, childhood immunization has benefits that far outweigh disease risks. However, some parents decide not to immunize their children with some or all vaccines for reasons including lack of trust in governments, health professionals, and vaccine manufacturers. This article employs a theoretical analysis of trust and distrust to explore how twenty-seven parents with a history of vaccine rejection in two Australian cities view the expert systems central to vaccination policy and practice. Our data show how perceptions of the profit motive generate distrust in the expert systems pertaining to vaccination. Our participants perceived that pharmaceutical companies had a pernicious influence over the systems driving vaccination: research, health professionals, and government. Accordingly, they saw vaccine recommendations in conflict with the interests of their child and "the system" underscored by malign intent, even if individual representatives of this system were not equally tainted. This perspective was common to parents who declined all vaccines and those who accepted some. We regard the differences between these parents-and indeed the differences between vaccine decliners and those whose Western medical epistemology informs reflexive trust-as arising from the internalization of countering views, which facilitates nuance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Researcher 8 5%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 45 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 26%
Social Sciences 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 47 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#392,634
of 25,121,016 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#11
of 658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,200
of 428,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,121,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.