The role of religious leaders in promoting acceptance of vaccination within a minority group: a qualitative study
The role of religious leaders in promoting acceptance of vaccination within a minority group: a qualitative study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-13-511
复制
发表时间：
2013-05-28
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Hulscher, Marlies E. J. L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ruijs, Wilhelmina L. M.;Hautvast, Jeannine L. A.;Hulscher, Marlies E. J. L.
背景：尽管儿童疫苗接种计划非常成功，但少数群体的疫苗接种覆盖率可能比普通人群低得多。为了提高这类少数群体的疫苗接种覆盖率，提倡宗教组织和宗教领袖的参与。我们评估了宗教领袖在荷兰疫苗接种率低的东正教少数群体中促进接受或拒绝接种疫苗的作用。方法：通过有目的的抽样选择不同教派的东正教宗教领袖进行半结构化访谈。对访谈的文本进行主题分析，并使用扎根理论中的持续比较法评估新兴概念的一致性。结果：12次访谈后，数据达到饱和。宗教领袖的三个小组脱颖而出：那些完全接受疫苗接种但没有解决这个问题的人，那些对接种疫苗有宗教反对但专注于刻意选择的人，以及那些对接种有宗教反对并鼓吹反对接种疫苗的人。宗教领袖的各种做法似乎取决于他们的会众是否接受疫苗接种以及他们的个人观点。所有宗教领袖都强调了自愿接种疫苗计划和宗教豁免接种疫苗要求的重要性。在疫苗可预防疾病流行的情况下，他们希望与当局进行对话。结论：宗教领袖对疫苗接种的态度从完全接受到明确拒绝。根据东正教的教会秩序，当地会众成员自己任命他们的宗教领袖。显然，他们选择的领袖的观点与会众成员的观点一致。此外，东正教宗教领袖对疫苗接种的立场不会轻易改变，因为他们对疫苗接种的反对植根于宗教教义，他们的权威归功于他们对这一教义的解释和应用。尽管荷兰政府与宗教领袖的对话可能有助于通过接种疫苗以外的其他方式控制疫情，但不太可能增加疫苗接种覆盖率。
Background: Although childhood vaccination programs have been very successful, vaccination coverage in minority groups may be considerably lower than in the general population. In order to increase vaccination coverage in such minority groups involvement of faith-based organizations and religious leaders has been advocated. We assessed the role of religious leaders in promoting acceptance or refusal of vaccination within an orthodox Protestant minority group with low vaccination coverage in The Netherlands.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with orthodox Protestant religious leaders from various denominations, who were selected via purposeful sampling. Transcripts of the interviews were thematically analyzed, and emerging concepts were assessed for consistency using the constant comparative method from grounded theory.Results: Data saturation was reached after 12 interviews. Three subgroups of religious leaders stood out: those who fully accepted vaccination and did not address the subject, those who had religious objections to vaccination but focused on a deliberate choice, and those who had religious objections to vaccination and preached against vaccination. The various approaches of the religious leaders seemed to be determined by the acceptance of vaccination in their congregation as well as by their personal point of view. All religious leaders emphasized the importance of voluntary vaccination programs and religious exemptions from vaccination requirements. In case of an epidemic of a vaccine preventable disease, they would appreciate a dialogue with the authorities. However, they were not willing to promote vaccination on behalf of authorities.Conclusion: Religious leaders' attitudes towards vaccination vary from full acceptance to clear refusal. According to orthodox Protestant church order, local congregation members appoint their religious leaders themselves. Obviously they choose leaders whose views are compatible with the views of the congregation members. Moreover, the positions of orthodox Protestant religious leaders on vaccination will not change easily, as their objections to vaccination are rooted in religious doctrine and they owe their authority to their interpretation and application of this doctrine. Although the dialogue with religious leaders that is pursued by the Dutch government may be helpful in controlling epidemics by other means than vaccination, it is unlikely to increase vaccination coverage.