“That’s a tricky question”
Perceptions of mandatory vaccination among parents and paediatricians in Austria
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21467461 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nora Hansl (0000-0002-7998-0974, University of Vienna), K Tawny Paul (0000-0002-3851-8951, University of Vienna, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 157 |
| Pages | 105331 |
| Publication date | 2025-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0168-8510 • E-ISSN: 1872-6054 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105331 |
| PMID | 40318523 |
| OpenAlex | W4409800218 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 43 |
Vaccination mandates can help improve vaccine uptake but remain controversial. • In Austria, parents and paediatricians favour incentives over mandates. • Perceptions are informed by individual experiences in healthcare systems. • Participants consider mandates in terms of ethical and epidemiological justification. • Societal effects of mandates are weighed against their potential to increase uptake. The COVID-19 pandemic and recurrent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases highlight the need to improve vaccine uptake. Vaccine mandates constitute prominent policy instruments that promise a quick increase in coverage. Yet mandates are difficult to implement and bear the potential to increase resistance and polarisation, while diminishing trust. Against this background, studying perceptions towards mandates of groups directly affected by mandates is key to sustainable vaccination governance In this paper, we study parents as decision-makers for childhood immunisation and paediatricians who administer vaccination and mitigate reactance. We explore how these two groups perceive vaccine mandates Our study builds on 42 qualitative interviews with parents and paediatricians. We draw on the case of Austria, which is characterised by a fragmented vaccination system and recent experiences with mandates Perceptions overall are ambivalent, with both cohorts weighing positive and negative aspects. We find four lines of reasoning that relate to perceptions of vaccine mandates: political and societal impact, epidemiological reasoning, ethical considerations, and impact on vaccine uptake . Both cohorts show considerable alignment in their perceptions. Crucially, we find that perceptions of mandates are formed in contextual, concrete experiences with the healthcare system Our findings have critical implications for vaccination policy in Austria and beyond, especially concerning the distribution of responsibility in vaccination systems
Family medicine · Perception · Political science · Vaccination · Child and Adolescent Health · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Medicine · Psychology · Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy · Pediatrics · Virology
The unintended consequences of Covid-19 vaccine policy
Vaccine mandates need a clear rationale to identify which exemptions are appropriate
The ethics of Covid‐19 vaccine mandates for healthcare workers
Why ‘inclusive policymaking’ is needed during crises
Anticipating hopes, fears and expectations towards Covid-19 vaccines
Covid-19 Vaccine Uptake Through the Lived Experiences of Health Care Personnel
Thematic Analysis
Determinants of physician attitudes towards the new selective measles vaccine mandate in Germany
The Expanded Program on Immunization in the English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean (1977–2016)
The impact of emotions on polarization. Anger polarizes attitudes towards vaccine mandates and increases affective polarization
Solidarity during the Covid-19 pandemic
Beyond Vaccination Mandates
Solidarity in Pandemics, Mandatory Vaccination, and Public Health Ethics
Divided by the jab
Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementation
The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization
Swiss residents' information behavior perceptions during the Covid-19 pandemic
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |