As soon as I told Mum I was [going to accept MMR], when I was going to do it, she said, ‘well I wouldn’t if I was you, I would research

it much better before you take such a decision’. http://www.selleckchem.com/products/epz-6438.html I try not to be influenced by family members, so I haven’t really spoken about it. Because I know they haven’t researched it, so there’s no point. (P14, singles) Parents’ descriptions of their MMR decisions covered five key areas: MMR vaccine and controversy; Social and personal consequences of MMR decision; Health professionals and policy; Severity and prevalence of measles, mumps and rubella infections; and Information about MMR and alternatives. Within these areas, a number of novel themes emerged in this study. Firstly, several parents spontaneously mentioned Andrew Wakefield (author of the article which ignited

the MMR controversy in 1998 [11]), and though the quality of his original paper was criticised across decision groups, Wakefield himself was viewed sympathetically even by some MMR1 acceptors. This novel finding may suggest that the Professional Misconduct case brought against Wakefield by the General Medical Council which opened in July 2007 [12], around six months before the interviews took place, served for some parents to highlight the personal consequences of the MMR controversy for Wakefield rather than the wider public consequences of the controversy for MMR uptake. Secondly, BAY 73-4506 concentration it emerged that among parents currently taking single vaccines, immune overload from the combination MMR was not a

salient concern. Instead, these parents have a sense that MMR is simply an unsafe vaccine, but exactly why it is unsafe is not known. Some MMR1-rejecting parents applied for quite general anti-vaccination arguments to their MMR decision, including doubts about the necessity of vaccination (e.g. feeling not all the diseases against which MMR protects actually warrant vaccination), worry about vaccine additives, and concerns about creating new disease strains by controlling current strains; rejection of combined MMR motivated by MMR-specific concerns appeared less common. This may indicate that as the number of parents rejecting MMR decreases, so the parents who remain in that group are those with the more extreme general anti-immunisation views. Thirdly, the risk of infectious disease was linked with immigrants in the UK and with travel abroad. Parents have previously been shown to consider some childhood infectious diseases of little concern in the UK today [46], but this sense that immigrant populations challenge the relative infrequency of infectious disease in the UK is a novel observation. This may reflect a wider general dissatisfaction with the volume of UK immigration [47] or polarisation of MMR rejection in a group of people who already share these concerns. Fourthly, many parents in this study criticised other parents’ MMR decisions and decision-making, and MMR1-rejecting parents often discussed feeling and being judged by other parents.