EditorialVaccine Safety: Injecting a Dose of Common Sense
References (31)
- et al.
Vaccine adverse events: casual or coincidental?
Lancet
(1998) - et al.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Vaccine
(1994) The epidemiology of varicella-zoster virus infections
infect Dis Clin North A m
(1996)- et al.
Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story
Lancet
(1998) Impact of vaccines universally recommended for children United States. 1990-1998
MMWRM Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
(1999)- et al.
A short history of vaccination
- et al.
Smallpox: the triumph over the most terrible of the ministers of death [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med. 1998:128:787|
Ann Intern Med
(1997) - et al.
Smallpox and vaccinia
- et al.
Strategies for the global eradication ofpoliomyelitis by the year 2000
N Engl J Med.
(1991) Polio eradication—how near? [editorial)
JAMA
(1996)
Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis: United Stales: 197.3 through 1984
JAMA
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: revised recommendations for routine poliomvelilis vaccination
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
Guillain-Barré syndrome following (A/New Jersey 76) inlluenza (swine flu) vaccine: epidemic or artifact?
The Guillain-Barré syndrome and the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 influenza vaccines
N Engl J Med
Acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine among hospital workers
Am J Public Health
Cited by (20)
Evaluation of a multinational, multilingual vaccine debate on Twitter
2016, VaccineCitation Excerpt :Particularly at the time of programme introduction, they tend to be accompanied by public discussion [1,2]. This may increase public awareness of the vaccine and affect the programme beneficially [3]. However, public concern may lead to reduced uptake or even jeopardize the entire immunization programme [4,5].
Hurdles to herd immunity: Distrust of government and vaccine refusal in the US, 2002–2003
2016, VaccineCitation Excerpt :From 1995 to 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices increased the number of immunizations included in recommended childhood vaccine schedule from 5 to 14 [23,24]. The increase in the number of vaccines required for school entry has been viewed by some with suspicion and has been cited by parents as a reason they do not vaccinate [25]. Perhaps most importantly, government distrust may influence where parents obtain their vaccine information and further serve as a filter that colors government-provided immunization resources with a layer of skepticism and suspicion.
Surveillance of Vaccine Safety: Comparison of parental reports with routine surveillance and a clinical trial
2009, VaccineCitation Excerpt :As the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases is reduced or even close to be eliminated due to high coverage of efficacious vaccines, the rate of adverse events associated with immunisation becomes relatively more apparent which has lead to an increased public concern about vaccine safety [1,3,5,6,9,28–30]. Parents have little or no memory of the epidemics of diseases before the vaccine era and they may fail to see the vaccine's relevance for their child as they do not perceive the child to be at risk because of their unawareness of the consequences of the disease [31]. The medical community has been relatively slow to appreciate the importance the public now places on vaccine safety [32].
Confidence in vaccination: A parent model
2005, VaccineThe challenge of vaccine safety
2002, Seminars in Pediatric Infectious DiseasesCitation Excerpt :Even when the majority does not hold strong views regarding the risks of a vaccine, the minority viewpoint or perception can inordinately influence decisions. Public perceptions can resemble a pyramid in this regard.21 Whereas the base of the pyramid represents the all-too-quiet majority, the point of the pyramid attracts attention (Fig 1).
Immunisation: Leaps into the future. Vaccine studies at the start of the XXI century (I)
2002, Atencion Primaria