blog.VaccineEthics.org
Vaccine News and Commentary from the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics

Monday, August 24, 2009

Assessing public attitudes toward H1N1 vaccination

This month, CDC has been holding 10 public meetings around the country soliciting input on H1N1 vaccination planning. The meetings, organized through a contact with The Keystone Center, a Colorado-based non-profit, continue through this weekend.

This past Saturday's meetings included one in Bucks County, PA, just north of Philadelphia. We attended the meeting, which was covered by The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Intelligencer, and WFMZ-TV. As those stories describe, several attendees were sharply critical of U.S. vaccination policy generally and, in particular, ongoing H1N1 vaccine activities. CDC communications specialist Marsha Vanderford was peppered with questions related to a range of concerns circulating on the internet. These questions/criticisms (and answers from Vanderford) included:
  • The presence of thimerosal in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccines (thimerosal-free vaccine will be available for those who prefer it),
  • The possible use of novel adjuvants (such as squalene) in the final formulation of the vaccine (none are included in the vaccine currently being tested),
  • The possibility that vaccination will be made mandatory (it will be voluntary),
  • The adequacy of clinical testing currently underway with respect to determining safety, (the vaccine is subject to the same requirements as any new influenza vaccine, but the timeline is accelerated in light of the urgency of the potential threat), and
  • The decision by HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius to grant legal immunity to H1N1 manufacturers and federal officials.
After this somewhat tense start to the day, the majority of the meeting was spent with participants in small groups considering the relative merits of three broad strategies to promote and implement H1N1 vaccination in the coming months. Dubbed "Go Slow," "Moderate Effort," and "Full Throttle," each approach included a set of promotion, funding, safety monitoring, disease surveillance, and other activities reflecting increasing "levels of effort," in the parlance of the meeting organizers.

Most groups favored elements from each strategy rather than supporting one particular approach wholesale. Nevertheless, when polled at the end of the day, a plurality of participants (49%) favored the "Moderate Effort" approach, with 30% preferring "Go Slow" and 21% advocating going "Full Throttle."

Participants also expressed preferences for a vaccination program that is flexible to changing circumstances, avoids safety concerns as much as possible, and prevents the maximum number of deaths and hospitalizations caused by H1N1.

Speaking of public attitudes regarding H1N1 vaccination, a Washington Post story published late last week reported that more than 60% of those surveyed were not worried that H1N1 flu will affect his or her family this fall. 55% of respondents said they were likely to get the vaccine for themselves or a family member, a number which increases to 65% if recommended by their doctor.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Site Notice     |      Contact Us     |      University of Pennsylvania     |      Penn Center for Bioethics

© 2005—2009, University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics.

3401 Market Street, Suite 320, Philadelphia, PA 19104
215-898-7136


VaccineEthics.org is supported by a grant from The Greenwall Foundation.