Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 411–426 | Cite as

Exploring Vaccine Hesitancy Through an Artist–Scientist Collaboration

Visualizing Vaccine-Critical Parents’ Health Beliefs
  • Kaisu Koski
  • Johan Holst
Original Research

Abstract

This project explores vaccine hesitancy through an artist–scientist collaboration. It aims to create better understanding of vaccine hesitant parents’ health beliefs and how these influence their vaccine-critical decisions. The project interviews vaccine-hesitant parents in the Netherlands and Finland and develops experimental visual-narrative means to analyse the interview data. Vaccine-hesitant parents’ health beliefs are, in this study, expressed through stories, and they are paralleled with so-called illness narratives. The study explores the following four main health beliefs originating from the parents’ interviews: (1) perceived benefits of illness, (2) belief in the body’s intelligence and self-healing capacity, (3) beliefs about the “inside–outside” flow of substances in the body, and (4) view of death as a natural part of life. These beliefs are interpreted through arts-based diagrammatic representations. These diagrams, merging multiple aspects of the parents’ narratives, are subsequently used in a collaborative meaning-making dialogue between the artist and the scientist. The resulting dialogue contrasts the health beliefs behind vaccine hesitancy with scientific knowledge, as well as the authors’ personal, and differing, attitudes toward these.

Keywords

Vaccine hesitancy Interview Health belief Illness narrative Arts-based data visualization Artist-scientist collaboration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Warm thanks to all those parents who volunteered to be interviewed for this study.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable feedback Professor Kati Hakkarainen has given on Kaisu’s interview process from microbiological, clinical, and educational perspectives in Finland and internationally. Drs. Hanne Nøkleby and Lisbeth Meyer Næss are both thanked warmly for their continued interest during the project, giving input and for participations in discussions at various stages in development of the present text. Dr. Nøkleby gave particular valuable comments from her long-standing experience as a medical doctor and paediatrician with contact with clinical vaccine practice in Norway and internationally. Dr. Næss gave a number of valuable contributions about vaccine compositions and immunological concepts.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study is part of Kaisu Koski’s Academy Research Fellow project Video Scenarios in Medical Education: Polyphony and Non-linearity in Audiovisual Doctor–Patient Narratives, which is funded by the Academy of Finland 2015–2020 (decision no 285118).

This work was completed as part of the International Collaboration for Capitalizing on Cost-Effective and Life-Saving Commodities (i4C) that is funded through the Research Council of Norway’s Global Health & Vaccination Program (GLOBVAC Project #234608).

Ethics Approval

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Human Sciences in the University of Tampere.

References

  1. Bolton, G. 2008. Boundaries of humanities: Writing medical humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(2): 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boydell, K.M., B.M. Gladstone, T. Volpe, B. Allemang, and E. Stasiulis. 2012. The production and dissemination of knowledge: A scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 13(1).Google Scholar
  3. Boydell, K.M., M. Hodgins, B.M. Gladstone, et al. 2016. Arts-based health research and academic legitimacy: Transcending hegemonic conventions. Qualitative Research 16(6): 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De la Croix, A., C. Rose, E. Wildig, and S. Willson. 2011. Arts-based learning in medical education: The students’ perspective. Medical Education 45(11): 1090–1100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank, A.W. 1995. The wounded storyteller. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harmsen, I.A., L. Mollema, R.A. Ruiter, T.G. Paulussen, H.E. de Melker, and G. Kok. 2013. Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: A qualitative study using online focus groups. BMC Public Health 13: 1183.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Kilty, S. 2000. Telling the illness story. The Patient’s Network 5(3): 17–18.Google Scholar
  8. Koski, K., F. Heyning, and R. Zwijnenberg. 2016. Collaborative meaning-making in arts-based research: Data interpretation with an artist, a physician, and an art historian. Art/Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal 1(1): 234–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koski, K. 2014a. Anatomical self-portraits: Observations, improvisations and elicitations in the medical school. Journal of Artistic Research 6.Google Scholar
  10. –––––––. 2014b. Mapping the female reproductive system: Arts-based inquiry of medical students’ anatomy drawings. Studies in Material Thinking 10.Google Scholar
  11. –––––––. 2013. As-if the patient were in the classroom: Video-based enquiry into the absent body in medical education. Journal of Applied Arts & Health 4(2): 207–222.Google Scholar
  12. MacDonald N.E. and SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. 2015. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 33(34): 4161–4164.Google Scholar
  13. McKee, C., and K. Bohannon. 2016. Exploring the reasons behind parental refusal of vaccines. Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology Therapy 21(2): 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peretti-Watel P., H.J. Larson, J.K. Ward, W.S. Schulz, and P. Verger. 2015. Vaccine hesitancy: Clarifying a theoretical framework for an ambiguous notion. PLOS Currents Outbreaks. doi: 10.1371/currents.outbreaks.6844c80ff9f5b273f34c91f71b7fc289.
  15. Platten B., M. Warin, and S. Coggrave. 2014. Mouthing disgust and pleasure in eating disorders. The Senses and Society 9(2): 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenstock, I. 1974. Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Education Monographs 2(4): 328–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, P.J., S.G. Humiston, E.K. Marcuse, et al. 2011. Parental delay or refusal of vaccine doses, childhood vaccination coverage at 24 months of age, and the Health Belief Model. Public Health Reports 126(Suppl 2): 135–146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Trollope-Kumar, K. 2002. Theories of health and illness. Encyclopedia of Public Health. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404000840.html. Accessed September 2, 2016.
  19. Tufte, E.R. 1997. Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics press.Google Scholar
  20. –––––––. 1990. Envisioning information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics press.Google Scholar
  21. Umoquit, M., P. Tso, T. Varga-Atkins, M. O’Brien, and J. Wheeldon. 2013. Diagrammatic elicitation: Defining the use of diagrams in data collection. The Qualitative Report 18(60): 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. Woods, A. 2011. The limits of narrative: Provocations for the medical humanities. Medical Humanities 37(2): 73–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Practice as Research in Theatre, Faculty of Communication SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Department of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Domain for Infection Control and Environmental HealthNorwegian Institute of Public HealthNydalenNorway

Personalised recommendations