Skip to main content

We use cookies so that we can offer you the best possible website experience. This includes cookies, which are necessary for the operation of the website and to manage our corporate commercial objectives, as well as other cookies which are used solely for anonymous statistical purposes and for more comfortable website settings. You are free to decide which categories you would like to permit. Depending on the settings you choose, the full functionality of the website may no longer be available.

Cookie Policy
×

Introduction

As vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) become available, vaccine hesitancy may become a critical public health issue. The Permanente Journal published a case report by Garofalo et al1 reporting on naturopathic counseling of a family toward appropriate vaccinations for their children through vaccine education. Their case illustration is important for several reasons, but perhaps most importantly it counters a prevalent belief that naturopathic physicians and other complementary and integrative health (CIH) practitioners are “anti-vaccination”.2 All accredited naturopathic colleges and universities educate medical students on prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases and the current vaccination schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Vaccine Hesitancy

Five key predictors of vaccine hesitancy have been identified in recent meta-analyses, including: risk conceptualization; mistrust toward pharmaceutical companies and health care providers; alternative health beliefs about immunity, vaccine scheduling, and risks of vaccinations; varying views on parental responsibility; and parental knowledge.3 All these factors could, at least in part, potentially be modified by a trusting doctor-patient relationship, including patient-centered counseling that allows for assessment of patient knowledge and health beliefs. This counseling should be supported by adequate time spent in respectful and culturally sensitive health education activities. In fact, similar interventions have been recommended in expert reviews focused on increasing vaccine uptake, including a specific recommendation for communication to “focus on listening and not unidirectional provision of information”.4 Importantly, CIH practitioners commonly emphasize principles of patient-centered care, including patient preferences in care and patient-centered communication strategies, including motivational interviewing, in their interactions with patients.
Patient preferences in care were also considered in the pertussis case report by Garofalo et al,1 a concept considered controversial in the context of vaccination,5 in which the option of choice is highly discouraged by numerous authorities. Conventional medical doctors, of course, rightly emphasize patient preferences and shared decision making in their clinical encounters as well. Suspending these considerations in the setting of the vaccination discussion, however, can have negative consequences. Clinical situations in which the choices are the most controversial are precisely those situations in which provider-patient trust becomes critical in the doctor-patient encounter. Developing a trusting relationship has the potential to affect choices in care over time. For example, a decision not to vaccinate today may become a decision to vaccinate in the future if patients feel their beliefs and preferences are respected. Likewise, discharging or otherwise refusing care for patients who refuse to vaccinate has the potential to backfire, by perpetuating distrust and fueling antimedical establishment ideologies. A focus on a vaccination-only strategy may also preclude effective delivery of other evidence-based preventive services, such as US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for behavioral counseling to reduce sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis B and human papillomavirus.6 Informed consent and patient autonomy (not to mention beneficence and nonmaleficence) are cornerstones in medical ethics; ultimately vaccination decisions should be no exception to their mandated inclusion and accuracy, although the best approach to balance societal benefit and individual choice remains unknown and controversial.7,8
As pointed out by Garofalo et al,1 findings of several observational studies suggest that undervaccinated children are more likely to receive care by naturopathic doctors (NDs).9,10 One possible explanation for this finding may be that some NDs do not adhere to or promote recommended vaccine schedules. On the other hand, it may also be the case, as illustrated by Garofalo and colleagues,1 that NDs are respecting patient preferences for care, facilitating the provision of continued care independently of individual choices and providing sources of other recommended preventive services as strategies to develop trust and establish long-term relationships with those families. In that way, vaccination decisions can be revisited if the knowledge or risk of those families changes. Of course, the actual clinical recommendations delivered in such encounters cannot be determined observationally without access to detailed health records data. Likewise, limited, claims-based observational studies cannot alone inform which pattern of care is more dominant among NDs. Pending further research, uninformed assumptions may lead to erroneous conclusions and suboptimal patient care.
In managing vaccine hesitancy, we recommend applying basic tenets of patient-centered care, which are specifically included in the philosophy of naturopathic medicine: find and address the cause (of vaccine hesitancy), treat the whole person (respecting his/her current knowledge and beliefs), and serve as a teacher (by providing accurate information).

Conclusion

Rather than criticize NDs and other CIH practitioners as being antivaccination, the provision of a referral of a vaccine-hesitant patient to such clinicians for vaccine education may provide an important gesture of respect and support to the patient. Coordinated interprovider communication has the potential to influence patients’ vaccine-related choices toward prevention—a goal we all share. This issue may become particularly important as vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 become available.

Acknowledgments

Kathleen Louden, ELS, of Louden Health Communications performed a primary copyedit.

References

1.
Garofalo L, Corn J, Sperandeo M. Pertussis Infection in a Naturopathic Primary Care Setting: Reflection on a Case. Perm J. 2020 24:20.065.
2.
Kajetanowicz A, Kajetanowicz A. Why parents refuse immunization? Wiad Lek. 2016 69(3 Pt 1):346-51.
3.
Diaz Crescitelli ME et al. A meta-synthesis study of the key elements involved in childhood vaccine hesitancy. Public Health. 2020 180:38-45.
4.
MacDonald NE, Butler R, Dube E. Addressing barriers to vaccine acceptance: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018 14(1):218-224.
5.
Fisher KA et al. Keeping the patient in the center: Common challenges in the practice of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2018 101(12):2195-2201.
6.
Sexually transmitted infections: Behavioral counseling [Internet]. Rockville, MD: US Preventive Services Task Force; 2014 9 22 [cited 2020 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/sexually-transmitted-infections-behavioral-counseling.
7.
Hendrix KS et al. Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2016 106(2):273-8.
8.
Williamson L, Glaab H. Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires an ethically consistent health strategy. BMC Med Ethics. 2018 19(1):84.
9.
Frawley JE, Foley H, McIntyre E. The associations between medical, allied and complementary medicine practitioner visits and childhood vaccine uptake. Vaccine. 2018 36(6):866-872.
10.
Downey L et al. Pediatric vaccination and vaccine-preventable disease acquisition: associations with care by complementary and alternative medicine providers. Matern Child Health J. 2010 14(6):922-30.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image The Permanente Journal
The Permanente Journal
Volume 24Number 4September 2, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Keywords

  1. antivaccination
  2. immunization
  3. naturopathic medicine
  4. vaccine-preventable disease
  5. vaccine refusal
  6. vaccine hesitancy

Authors

Affiliations

Ryan Bradley, ND, MPH
Helfgott Research Institute, National University of Natural Medicine, Portland, OR
Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA
Charles Elder, MD, MPH
Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR

Notes

Corresponding Author: Ryan Bradley, ND, MPH ([email protected])

Competing Interests

Disclosure Statement
The author(s) have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Citing Literature

  • Healthcare Professionals’ Discursive Constructions of Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Tale of Multiple Moralities, Qualitative Health Research, 10.1177/10497323241245646, (2024).
  • Parents’ Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccination and Childhood Vaccines During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 10.1177/10105395211058291, 34, 2-3, (270-272), (2021).
  • A Behavioral analysis of nurses’ and pharmacists’ role in addressing vaccine hesitancy: scoping review, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 10.1080/21645515.2021.1954444, 17, 11, (4487-4504), (2021).

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media