Abstract
Infectious diseases are a major public health concern and socio-economic burden at all ages, but children are by far the most vulnerable to infections. In high income countries, infectious diseases are on the rise, a phenomenon in part attributed to the recent surge of vaccination hesitancy. To combat vaccination hesitancy, several countries recently made vaccinating children mandatory, but the effectiveness of such vaccination laws in increasing the vaccination coverage remains debated and the long-term consequences are unknown. Here we quantified the consequences of vaccination laws on the vaccination coverage monitoring for a period of 63 years world’s first vaccination campaign against the highly lethal childhood infection smallpox in rural Finland. We found that annual vaccination campaigns were focussed on children up to 1 year old, but that their vaccination coverage was low and declined with time until the start of the vaccination law, which stopped the declining trend and was associated with an abrupt coverage increase of 20 % to cover >80 % of all children. The spatio-temporal variance in vaccination coverage decreased with time but this was not directly associated with the vaccination law. Our results indicate that vaccination laws had a long-term beneficial effect at increasing the vaccination coverage and will help public health practitioners to make informed decisions on how to act against vaccine hesitancy and optimize the impact of vaccination programmes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We received funding from the Doctoral Programme in Biology, Geography and Geology, University of Turku (SU), the Academy of Finland (292368, VL), ERC (CoG 648766, VL) and the Ella & Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation (MB). These funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Following the local legislation, no IRB and/or ethics committee approval is needed for this retrospective study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* co-senior authors
Data Availability
The data supporting the findings of our study is derived from three public domains: the National Archives of Finland, Finland's Family History Association and the Genealogical Society of Finland. However, due to the nature of this study and personal information in these health records, supporting data are not publicly shared.
