Abstract
Objectives To explore acceptability of and preferences for the introduction of varicella vaccination to the UK childhood immunisation schedule.
Design We conducted an online cross-sectional survey exploring parental attitudes towards vaccines in general, and varicella vaccine specifically, and their preferences for how the vaccine should be administered.
Participants 596 parents (76.3% female, 23.3% male, mean age 33.4 years) whose youngest child was aged 0-5 years.
Main outcome measures Willingness to accept the vaccine for their child and preferences for how the vaccine should be administered (in combination with the MMR vaccine [MMRV], on the same day as the MMR vaccine but as a separate injection [MMR+V], on a separate additional visit).
Results 74.0% of parents (95% CI 70.2% to 77.5%) were extremely/somewhat likely to accept a varicella vaccine for their child if one became available, 18.3% (95% CI 15.3% to 21.8%) were extremely/somewhat unlikely to accept it and 7.7% (95% CI 5.7% to 10.2%) were neither likely nor unlikely. Reasons provided by parents likely to accept the vaccine included protection from complications of chickenpox, trust in the vaccine/healthcare professionals, and wanting their child to avoid their personal experience of chickenpox. Reasons provided by parents who were unlikely included chickenpox not being a serious illness, concern about side effects, and believing it is preferable to catch chickenpox as a child rather than as an adult. A combined MMRV vaccination or additional visit to the surgery were preferred over an additional injection at the same visit.
Conclusions Most parents would accept a varicella vaccination. These findings highlight parents’ preferences for varicella vaccine administration, information needed to inform vaccine policy and practice and development of a communication strategy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
NL-H was supported by a British Psychological Society Undergraduate Research Assistantship awarded to her and SMS. Data collection was supported by a Keele University Faculty of Natural Sciences Research Development award to SMS.
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:
The study was reviewed and approved by Keele University Psychology Research Ethics Committee (reference: PS-210200).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Data Availability
Data will be made available online on acceptance of manuscript.
