Parent and caregiver perceptions about the safety and effectiveness of foreign and domestic vaccines in Shanghai, China

Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2018-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e0197437-e0197437
Hauptverfasser: Huang, Zhuoying, Sun, Xiaodong, Wagner, Abram L, Ren, Jia, Boulton, Matthew L, Prosser, Lisa A, Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0197437
container_issue 5
container_start_page e0197437
container_title PloS one
container_volume 13
creator Huang, Zhuoying
Sun, Xiaodong
Wagner, Abram L
Ren, Jia
Boulton, Matthew L
Prosser, Lisa A
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J
description Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of Chinese and foreign vaccines. In May 2014, caregivers of young children at public immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, responded to a survey on vaccine perceptions. The two outcomes (differential belief in the effectiveness and safety of foreign vs domestic vaccines) were separately regressed onto demographic predictors in multinomial logistic regression models. Among 618 caregivers, 56% thought the effectiveness of domestic and foreign vaccines were comparable; 33% thought domestic were more effective and 11% foreign. Two-thirds thought foreign and domestic vaccines had similar safety; 11% thought domestic were safer and 21% thought foreign were safer. Compared to college graduates, those with a high school education or less had greater odds of believing domestic vaccines were more effective, and also had greater odds of believing imported vaccines were safer. Greater trust in TCM was not associated with differential beliefs in the effectiveness or safety of domestic vs foreign vaccines. Although there is no evidence that foreign and domestic vaccines differ in either effectiveness or safety, less educated caregivers in China (but not those with greater trust in TCM) appear to believe such differences exist. Further exploration of the causes of these beliefs may be necessary in order to optimize vaccine communications in China.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0197437
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2042205455</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A539716113</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3dc222e76e464affb17c172ef8e47e8c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A539716113</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1a2d34c8900580b3ae7cd1787647565573e1366fa8c4883391fc7ead3d7875b63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDgig4Y5M0SXsjLIMfAwsrrnobMulJm6WTjEk7uv_ezEx3mcpeSC4Skue8J-dNTpY9x_kcU4HfX_shONXNN97BPMeVKKh4kJ3iipIZJzl9eLQ-yZ7EeJ3njJacP85OSCVKwvLyNPv9VQVwPVKuRjotG7uFgDYQNGx6611EauWHHvUtoKgM9Dd7FIwB3SfWQYzIG2R8ANu4_WHt1xB7q9FWaW0TgaxDV61yTavsO7RorVNPs0dGdRGejfNZ9uPTx--LL7OLy8_LxfnFTPOK9DOsSE0LXVbp7mW-ogqErrEoBS8E44wJCphyblSpi7KktMJGC1A1rRPDVpyeZS8PupvORzl6FiXJC0JyVjCWiOWBqL26lptg1yrcSK-s3G_40EgVUjUdSFprQggIDgUvlDErLDQWBEwJhYBSJ60PY7ZhtYZaJ2eD6iai0xNnW9n4rWRVeiZeJYE3o0Dwv4bkolzbqKHrlAM_HO4tGK7KXWWv_kHvr26kGpUKsM74lFfvROU5o5XAHGOaqPk9VBo1rK1OH8zYtD8JeDsJSEwPf_pGDTHK5dW3_2cvf07Z10dsC6rr2-i7Yf8Vp2BxAHXwMQYwdybjXO7649YNuesPOfZHCntx_EB3QbcNQf8CnpkK2Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2042205455</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Parent and caregiver perceptions about the safety and effectiveness of foreign and domestic vaccines in Shanghai, China</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Huang, Zhuoying ; Sun, Xiaodong ; Wagner, Abram L ; Ren, Jia ; Boulton, Matthew L ; Prosser, Lisa A ; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J</creator><contributor>Liu, Chaojie</contributor><creatorcontrib>Huang, Zhuoying ; Sun, Xiaodong ; Wagner, Abram L ; Ren, Jia ; Boulton, Matthew L ; Prosser, Lisa A ; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J ; Liu, Chaojie</creatorcontrib><description>Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of Chinese and foreign vaccines. In May 2014, caregivers of young children at public immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, responded to a survey on vaccine perceptions. The two outcomes (differential belief in the effectiveness and safety of foreign vs domestic vaccines) were separately regressed onto demographic predictors in multinomial logistic regression models. Among 618 caregivers, 56% thought the effectiveness of domestic and foreign vaccines were comparable; 33% thought domestic were more effective and 11% foreign. Two-thirds thought foreign and domestic vaccines had similar safety; 11% thought domestic were safer and 21% thought foreign were safer. Compared to college graduates, those with a high school education or less had greater odds of believing domestic vaccines were more effective, and also had greater odds of believing imported vaccines were safer. Greater trust in TCM was not associated with differential beliefs in the effectiveness or safety of domestic vs foreign vaccines. Although there is no evidence that foreign and domestic vaccines differ in either effectiveness or safety, less educated caregivers in China (but not those with greater trust in TCM) appear to believe such differences exist. Further exploration of the causes of these beliefs may be necessary in order to optimize vaccine communications in China.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197437</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29782508</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and life sciences ; Caregivers ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Children ; China ; Chinese medicine ; Demographics ; Demography ; Female ; Graduates ; Haemophilus influenzae ; Health aspects ; Health attitudes ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Herbal medicine ; Humans ; Immunization ; Infant ; Influence ; Male ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Medicine, Chinese Traditional ; Mumps ; Parenting ; Parents ; People and Places ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Safety ; Social aspects ; Traditional Chinese medicine ; Treatment Outcome ; Vaccination ; Vaccines ; Vaccines - adverse effects</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e0197437-e0197437</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Huang et al 2018 Huang et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1a2d34c8900580b3ae7cd1787647565573e1366fa8c4883391fc7ead3d7875b63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1a2d34c8900580b3ae7cd1787647565573e1366fa8c4883391fc7ead3d7875b63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0034-9160</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962069/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962069/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2095,2914,23846,27903,27904,53769,53771,79346,79347</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782508$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Liu, Chaojie</contributor><creatorcontrib>Huang, Zhuoying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Xiaodong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Abram L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ren, Jia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boulton, Matthew L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prosser, Lisa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J</creatorcontrib><title>Parent and caregiver perceptions about the safety and effectiveness of foreign and domestic vaccines in Shanghai, China</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of Chinese and foreign vaccines. In May 2014, caregivers of young children at public immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, responded to a survey on vaccine perceptions. The two outcomes (differential belief in the effectiveness and safety of foreign vs domestic vaccines) were separately regressed onto demographic predictors in multinomial logistic regression models. Among 618 caregivers, 56% thought the effectiveness of domestic and foreign vaccines were comparable; 33% thought domestic were more effective and 11% foreign. Two-thirds thought foreign and domestic vaccines had similar safety; 11% thought domestic were safer and 21% thought foreign were safer. Compared to college graduates, those with a high school education or less had greater odds of believing domestic vaccines were more effective, and also had greater odds of believing imported vaccines were safer. Greater trust in TCM was not associated with differential beliefs in the effectiveness or safety of domestic vs foreign vaccines. Although there is no evidence that foreign and domestic vaccines differ in either effectiveness or safety, less educated caregivers in China (but not those with greater trust in TCM) appear to believe such differences exist. Further exploration of the causes of these beliefs may be necessary in order to optimize vaccine communications in China.</description><subject>Biology and life sciences</subject><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Chinese medicine</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Graduates</subject><subject>Haemophilus influenzae</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health attitudes</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Herbal medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunization</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Medicine, Chinese Traditional</subject><subject>Mumps</subject><subject>Parenting</subject><subject>Parents</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Traditional Chinese medicine</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Vaccination</subject><subject>Vaccines</subject><subject>Vaccines - adverse effects</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDgig4Y5M0SXsjLIMfAwsrrnobMulJm6WTjEk7uv_ezEx3mcpeSC4Skue8J-dNTpY9x_kcU4HfX_shONXNN97BPMeVKKh4kJ3iipIZJzl9eLQ-yZ7EeJ3njJacP85OSCVKwvLyNPv9VQVwPVKuRjotG7uFgDYQNGx6611EauWHHvUtoKgM9Dd7FIwB3SfWQYzIG2R8ANu4_WHt1xB7q9FWaW0TgaxDV61yTavsO7RorVNPs0dGdRGejfNZ9uPTx--LL7OLy8_LxfnFTPOK9DOsSE0LXVbp7mW-ogqErrEoBS8E44wJCphyblSpi7KktMJGC1A1rRPDVpyeZS8PupvORzl6FiXJC0JyVjCWiOWBqL26lptg1yrcSK-s3G_40EgVUjUdSFprQggIDgUvlDErLDQWBEwJhYBSJ60PY7ZhtYZaJ2eD6iai0xNnW9n4rWRVeiZeJYE3o0Dwv4bkolzbqKHrlAM_HO4tGK7KXWWv_kHvr26kGpUKsM74lFfvROU5o5XAHGOaqPk9VBo1rK1OH8zYtD8JeDsJSEwPf_pGDTHK5dW3_2cvf07Z10dsC6rr2-i7Yf8Vp2BxAHXwMQYwdybjXO7649YNuesPOfZHCntx_EB3QbcNQf8CnpkK2Q</recordid><startdate>20180521</startdate><enddate>20180521</enddate><creator>Huang, Zhuoying</creator><creator>Sun, Xiaodong</creator><creator>Wagner, Abram L</creator><creator>Ren, Jia</creator><creator>Boulton, Matthew L</creator><creator>Prosser, Lisa A</creator><creator>Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0034-9160</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180521</creationdate><title>Parent and caregiver perceptions about the safety and effectiveness of foreign and domestic vaccines in Shanghai, China</title><author>Huang, Zhuoying ; Sun, Xiaodong ; Wagner, Abram L ; Ren, Jia ; Boulton, Matthew L ; Prosser, Lisa A ; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1a2d34c8900580b3ae7cd1787647565573e1366fa8c4883391fc7ead3d7875b63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Biology and life sciences</topic><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Chinese medicine</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Graduates</topic><topic>Haemophilus influenzae</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health attitudes</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Herbal medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunization</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Medicine, Chinese Traditional</topic><topic>Mumps</topic><topic>Parenting</topic><topic>Parents</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Traditional Chinese medicine</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Vaccination</topic><topic>Vaccines</topic><topic>Vaccines - adverse effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Zhuoying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Xiaodong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Abram L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ren, Jia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boulton, Matthew L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prosser, Lisa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Zhuoying</au><au>Sun, Xiaodong</au><au>Wagner, Abram L</au><au>Ren, Jia</au><au>Boulton, Matthew L</au><au>Prosser, Lisa A</au><au>Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J</au><au>Liu, Chaojie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Parent and caregiver perceptions about the safety and effectiveness of foreign and domestic vaccines in Shanghai, China</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-05-21</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0197437</spage><epage>e0197437</epage><pages>e0197437-e0197437</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of Chinese and foreign vaccines. In May 2014, caregivers of young children at public immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, responded to a survey on vaccine perceptions. The two outcomes (differential belief in the effectiveness and safety of foreign vs domestic vaccines) were separately regressed onto demographic predictors in multinomial logistic regression models. Among 618 caregivers, 56% thought the effectiveness of domestic and foreign vaccines were comparable; 33% thought domestic were more effective and 11% foreign. Two-thirds thought foreign and domestic vaccines had similar safety; 11% thought domestic were safer and 21% thought foreign were safer. Compared to college graduates, those with a high school education or less had greater odds of believing domestic vaccines were more effective, and also had greater odds of believing imported vaccines were safer. Greater trust in TCM was not associated with differential beliefs in the effectiveness or safety of domestic vs foreign vaccines. Although there is no evidence that foreign and domestic vaccines differ in either effectiveness or safety, less educated caregivers in China (but not those with greater trust in TCM) appear to believe such differences exist. Further exploration of the causes of these beliefs may be necessary in order to optimize vaccine communications in China.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29782508</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0197437</doi><tpages>e0197437</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0034-9160</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2018-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e0197437-e0197437
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2042205455
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Biology and life sciences
Caregivers
Child
Child, Preschool
Children
China
Chinese medicine
Demographics
Demography
Female
Graduates
Haemophilus influenzae
Health aspects
Health attitudes
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Herbal medicine
Humans
Immunization
Infant
Influence
Male
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medicine, Chinese Traditional
Mumps
Parenting
Parents
People and Places
Regression analysis
Regression models
Safety
Social aspects
Traditional Chinese medicine
Treatment Outcome
Vaccination
Vaccines
Vaccines - adverse effects
title Parent and caregiver perceptions about the safety and effectiveness of foreign and domestic vaccines in Shanghai, China
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T08%3A31%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Parent%20and%20caregiver%20perceptions%20about%20the%20safety%20and%20effectiveness%20of%20foreign%20and%20domestic%20vaccines%20in%20Shanghai,%20China&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Huang,%20Zhuoying&rft.date=2018-05-21&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0197437&rft.epage=e0197437&rft.pages=e0197437-e0197437&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0197437&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA539716113%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2042205455&rft_id=info:pmid/29782508&rft_galeid=A539716113&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_3dc222e76e464affb17c172ef8e47e8c&rfr_iscdi=true