Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics and Political Sophistication.

CONTEXT: The role of political identities in determining attitudes to vaccines has attracted a lot of attention in the last decade. Explanations have tended to focus on the influence of party representatives on their sympathizers (partisan cues). METHODS: Four representatives samples of the French adult population completed online questionnaires between July 2021 and May 2022 (N = 9,177). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to test whether partisan differences in attitudes to vaccines are best explained by partisan cues or by parties' differences in propensity to attract people who distrust the actors involved in vaccination policies. FINDINGS: People who feel close to parties at the far left, the far right and to green parties are more vaccine hesitant. We found a small evidence for the effect of partisan cues and a much stronger effect of trust. But more importantly, we show that the more politically sophisticated are less vaccine hesitant and that the non-partisan are the biggest and most vaccine-hesitant group. CONCLUSIONS: The literature has focused on the case of the USA but turning the attention towards countries where disenchantment with politics is more marked helps better understand the different ways trust, partisanship and political sophistication can affect attitudes to vaccines.

Vaccine hesitancy about the HPV vaccine among French young women and their parents: a telephone survey.

BACKGROUND: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine reduces the burden of cervical and other cancers. In numerous countries, a slow uptakeof this vaccine persists, calling for a better understanding of the structural factors leading to vaccine acceptation. We aimed to assess the attitudes toward HPV vaccination among its intended public to explore its specific characteristics. METHODS: A random cross-sectional telephone survey of the French general population provided data from a sample of 2426 respondents of the target public: the parents of young women and the young women aged 15-25 themselves. We applied cluster analysis to identify contrasting attitudinal profiles, and logistic regressions with a model averaging method to investigate and rank the factors associated with these profiles. RESULTS: A third of the respondents had never heard of HPV. However, most of the respondents who had heard of it agreed that it is a severe (93.8%) and frequent (65.1%) infection. Overall, 72.3% of them considered the HPV vaccine to be effective, but 54% had concerns about its side effects. We identified four contrasting profiles based on their perceptions of this vaccine: informed supporters, objectors, uninformed supporters, and those who were uncertain. In multivariate analysis, these attitudinal clusters were the strongest predictors of HPV vaccine uptake, followed by attitudes toward vaccination in general. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored information campaigns and programs should address the specific and contrasted concerns about HPV vaccination of both young women and of their parents.

Diversity of attitudes towards complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and vaccines: A representative cross-sectional study in France.

How much does endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) correlate with negative attitudes towards vaccines? One of the difficulties of analysing the relationship between attitudes to CAM and attitudes towards vaccines rests in the complexity of both. Which form of CAM endorsement is associated with what type of reticence towards vaccines? While the literature on the relationship between CAM and attitudes towards vaccines is growing, this question has not yet been explored. In this study we present the results of a survey conducted in July 2021 among a representative sample of the French mainland adult population (n = 3087). Using cluster analysis, we identified five profiles of CAM attitudes and found that even among the most pro-CAM group, very few respondents disagreed with the idea that CAM should only be used as a complement to conventional medicine. We then compared these CAM attitudes to vaccine attitudes. Attitudes to CAM had a distinct impact as well as a combined effect on attitudes to different vaccines and vaccines in general. However, we also found a) that attitudes to CAM provide a very limited explanation of vaccine hesitancy and b) that, among the hesitant, pro-CAM attitudes are often combined with other traits associated with vaccine hesitancy such as distrust of health agencies, radical political preferences and low income. Indeed, we found that both CAM endorsement and vaccine hesitancy are more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged. Drawing on these results, we argue that, to better understand the relationship between CAM and vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to look at how both can reflect lack of access and recourse to mainstream medicine and distrust of public institutions.

Exploring the feelings of being at risk of vaccine related adverse effects: A cross-sectional survey in France.

OBJECTIVES: The literature on vaccine hesitancy has widely commented on the various factors leading some to feel particularly at risk of disease infection while others do not. But little attention has been paid to whether we also see such differences regarding people's assessment of their personal vulnerability towards vaccine adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We designed two cross-sectional online surveys among representative samples of the French mainland population (n = 2015 and 3087). We asked participants if they felt, more than others, at risk of severe vaccine related side effects and to explain why. We performed two separate mixed effect binomial regressions models: 1) to explore the link between the feeling of being particularly at risk of severe vaccine related AEs and socio-demographic characteristics, source of information, trust in health agencies and partisan orientation; 2) to explore the link between the fear of side effects and vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: We found that 15% of respondents felt to be, more than others, at risk of severe vaccine-related adverse events and that this feeling was associated to negative attitudes to vaccines. This feeling was particularly prevalent among women, those with a lower income, lower educational attainment and lower trust in public health institutions. The vast majority of the reasons given by responders are unrelated to genuine risk factors of vaccine related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that vaccine hesitancy is at least partly grounded in a feeling of vulnerability towards vaccine adverse events.

Impact of Vaccine Hesitancy on Onset, Severity and Type of Self-reported Adverse Events: A French Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the impact of mandatory vaccination on people who are reluctant to be vaccinated, despite the potential importance in terms of public health policy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and onset, severity and characteristics of self-reported adverse events. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 2021 among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 years and older (n = 1593). All reported adverse events were analyzed and categorized by trained experts in drug safety and pharmacovigilance. Multivariate binomial regressions on the onset of self-reported adverse events, vaccine hesitancy categories and predefined responders' characteristics were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 590 (37.0%) participants reported at least one adverse event, with 121 (20.5%) considered it to be severe. Proportions of reported adverse events, ranging from 18% (in non-reluctant responders) to 65% (in very reluctant responders), and their severity, ranging from 5% (non-reluctant responders) to 41% (very reluctant responders), depended highly on attitudes toward vaccination. The adverse events profile remained similar between groups. In the multivariate regression model, beyond attitude toward vaccination, younger age and female gender were significantly associated with higher reporting of vaccine adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that vaccine hesitancy could be a major driver of patient-reported vaccine-related adverse events and their perceived severity. In this context, vaccinators must pay special attention to reluctant patients and inform them on the possible nocebo nature of these adverse events so as to prevent them.

Lived experience and perceived advantages of therapeutic De-escalation: A qualitative study of older patients with breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: One option for therapeutic de-escalation in older women with early breast cancer (EBC) is partial breast irradiation (PBI) instead of whole-breast irradiation (WBI) when the latter has no clear advantages. We aimed to explore the decision-making processes and the lived experiences of WBI and PBI from the perspectives of older women with EBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thematic content analysis was performed on qualitative data collected using narrative interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-two women aged 65 and over participated (ten patients who underwent WBI and twelve who underwent PBI). We identified three themes from their narratives: 1) Acceptance of a paternalistic relationship with physicians, 2) Strong need for an informed choice, and 3) PBI can help people conceal cancer-related physical marks. Narratives underlined participants' preferences for each of the two treatments and their perceptions about therapeutic de-escalation. Misconceptions about therapeutic de-escalation were observed. DISCUSSION: When providing information about EBC treatment options, patients' perceived burden of side effects should be considered. Moreover, eliciting the value older patients place on available breast cancer treatments, as well as their related goals and preferences, could foster their participation in the therapeutic de-escalation decision-making process.

Acceptance of childhood and adolescent vaccination against COVID-19 in France: a national cross-sectional study in May 2021.

The French health authorities extended vaccination against COVID-19 to adolescents in June 2021, during the epidemic resurgence linked to the delta variant and because of insufficient vaccination coverage to ensure collective protection. In May 2021, we conducted a national online cross-sectional survey of 2533 adults in France to study their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and their acceptance of child/adolescent vaccination according to targeted age groups (<6 years; 6-11; 12-17) and its determinants. We applied a multi-model averaged logistic regression for each of these age groups to study the determinants of favorability to vaccination. Among the respondents, 62.7% (1597) accepted COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents, 48.3% (1223) for children aged 6-11 years, and only 31% (783) for children under 6 years. Acceptance increased with fear of contracting COVID-19 and trust in institutions and decreased as the COVID-19 vaccine risk perception score increased. People favorable to vaccination in general and those sensitive to social pressure were also more often favorable to vaccinating children/adolescents than those who were not. Drivers of acceptance were ranked differently for the different age groups. Understanding these differences is essential to anticipating obstacles to vaccination of these age groups and designing appropriate information and motivational strategies to support it.