Parents' attitudes towards the No Jab No Play legislation in Western Australia: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Mandates provide a relatively cost-effective strategy to increase vaccinate rates. Since 2014, five Australian states have implemented No Jab No Play (NJPlay) policies that require children to be fully immunised to attend early childhood education and childcare services. In Western Australia, where this study was conducted, NJNPlay legislation was enacted in 2019. While most Australian families support vaccine mandates, there are a range of complexities and unintended consequences for some families. This research explores the impact on families of the NJNPlay legislation in Western Australia (WA). METHODS: This mixed-methods study used an online parent/carer survey (n = 261) representing 427 children and in-depth interviews (n = 18) to investigate: (1) the influence of the NJNPlay legislation on decision to vaccinate; and (2) the financial and emotional impacts of NJNPlay legislation. Descriptive and bivariate tests were used to analyse the survey data and open-ended questions and interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to capture the experience and the reality of participants. RESULTS: Approximately 60% of parents intended to vaccinate their child. Parents who had decided not to vaccinate their child/ren were significantly more likely to experience financial [p < 0.001] and emotional impacts [p < 0.001], compared to those who chose to vaccinate because of the mandate. Qualitative data were divided with around half of participants supporting childhood immunisation and NJNPlay with others discussing concerns. The themes (a) belief in the importance of vaccination and ease of access, (b) individual and community protection, and (c) vaccine effectiveness, safety and alternatives help understand how parents' beliefs and access may influence vaccination uptake. Unintended impacts of NJNPlay included: (a) lack of choice, pressure and coercion to vaccinate; (b) policy and community level stigma and discrimination; (c) financial and career impacts; and (d) loss of education opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Parents appreciation of funded immunisation programs and mandates which enhance individual and community protection was evident. However for others unintended consequences of the mandate resulted in significant social, emotional, financial and educational impacts. Long-term evidence highlights the positive impact of immunisation programs. Opinions of impacted families should be considered to alleviate mental health stressors.

The Impact of the No Jab No Play and No Jab No Pay Legislation in Australia: A Scoping Review.

Australia has a long history of population-based immunisation programs including legislations. This paper reports on a review of evaluations of the impact of the federal No Jab No Pay (NJNPay) and state implemented No Jab No Play (NJNPlay) legislations on childhood immunisation coverage and related parental attitudes. Five databases were searched for peer-review papers (Medline (Ovid); Scopus; PsycInfo; ProQuest; and CINAHL). Additional searches were conducted in Google Scholar and Informit (Australian databases) for grey literature. Studies were included if they evaluated the impact of the Australian NJNPay and/or NJNPlay legislations. Ten evaluations were included: nine peer-review studies and one government report. Two studies specifically evaluated NJNPlay, five evaluated NJNPay, and three evaluated both legislations. Findings show small but gradual and significant increases in full coverage and increases in catch-up vaccination after the implementation of the legislations. Full coverage was lowest for lower and higher socio-economic groups. Mandates are influential in encouraging vaccination; however, inequities may exist for lower income families who are reliant on financial incentives and the need to enrol their children in early childhood centres. Vaccine refusal and hesitancy was more evident among higher income parents while practical barriers were more likely to impact lower income families. Interventions to address access and vaccine hesitancy will support these legislations.

Intimate Partner Violence During COVID-19 Restrictions: A Study of 30 Countries From the I-SHARE Consortium.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) causes substantial physical and psychological trauma. Restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including lockdowns and movement restrictions, may exacerbate IPV risk and reduce access to IPV support services. This cross-sectional study examines IPV during COVID-19 restrictions in 30 countries from the International Sexual HeAlth and REproductive Health (I-SHARE) study conducted from July 20th, 2020, to February, 15th, 2021. IPV was a primary outcome measure adapted from a World Health Organization multicountry survey. Mixed-effects modeling was used to determine IPV correlates among participants stratified by cohabitation status. The sample included 23,067 participants from 30 countries. A total of 1,070/15,336 (7.0%) participants stated that they experienced IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. A total of 1,486/15,336 (9.2%) participants stated that they had experienced either physical or sexual partner violence before the restrictions, which then decreased to 1,070 (7.0%) after the restrictions. In general, identifying as a sexual minority and experiencing greater economic vulnerability were associated with higher odds of experiencing IPV during COVID-19 restrictions, which were accentuated among participants who were living with their partners. Greater stringency of COVID-19 restrictions and living in urban or semi-urban areas were associated with lower odds of experiencing IPV in some settings. The I-SHARE data suggest a substantial burden of IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. However, the restrictions were correlated with reduced IPV in some settings. There is a need for investing in specific support systems for survivors of IPV during the implementation of restrictions designed to contain infectious disease outbreaks.