Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-11377933
Katie Attwell, Adam Hannah, Shevaun Drislane, Mark Christopher Navin
{"title":"Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019.","authors":"Katie Attwell, Adam Hannah, Shevaun Drislane, Mark Christopher Navin","doi":"10.1215/03616878-11377933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>In 2012, California instituted a new requirement for parents to consult with a clinician before receiving a personal belief exemption (PBE) to its school entry vaccine mandate. In 2015, the state removed this exemption altogether. In 2019, legislators cracked down on medical exemptions to address their misuse by vaccine refusers and supportive clinicians. This article uses \"policy feedback theory\" to explore these political conflicts, arguing that PBEs informed the emergence and approaches of two coalitions whose conflict reshaped California's vaccination policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors analyzed legal, policy, academic, and media documents; interviewed 10 key informants; and deductively analyzed transcripts using NVivo 20 transcription software.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>California's long-standing vaccination policy inadvertently disseminated two fundamentally incompatible social norms: vaccination is a choice, and vaccination is not a choice. Over time, the culture and number of vaccine refusers grew, at least in part because the state's policy sanctioned the norm of vaccine refusal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The long-term consequences of California's \"mandate + PBE\" policy-visible, public, and socially sanctioned vaccine refusal-undermined support for it over time, generating well-defined losses for a large group of people (the vaccinating public) and specifically for the provaccine parent activists whose experiences of personal grievance drove their mobilization for change.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"1075-1110"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11377933","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: In 2012, California instituted a new requirement for parents to consult with a clinician before receiving a personal belief exemption (PBE) to its school entry vaccine mandate. In 2015, the state removed this exemption altogether. In 2019, legislators cracked down on medical exemptions to address their misuse by vaccine refusers and supportive clinicians. This article uses "policy feedback theory" to explore these political conflicts, arguing that PBEs informed the emergence and approaches of two coalitions whose conflict reshaped California's vaccination policies.

Methods: The authors analyzed legal, policy, academic, and media documents; interviewed 10 key informants; and deductively analyzed transcripts using NVivo 20 transcription software.

Findings: California's long-standing vaccination policy inadvertently disseminated two fundamentally incompatible social norms: vaccination is a choice, and vaccination is not a choice. Over time, the culture and number of vaccine refusers grew, at least in part because the state's policy sanctioned the norm of vaccine refusal.

Conclusions: The long-term consequences of California's "mandate + PBE" policy-visible, public, and socially sanctioned vaccine refusal-undermined support for it over time, generating well-defined losses for a large group of people (the vaccinating public) and specifically for the provaccine parent activists whose experiences of personal grievance drove their mobilization for change.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策反馈与儿童疫苗任务的政治学:2012-2019 年加利福尼亚州的冲突与变化》(Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019)。
背景:2012 年,加利福尼亚州出台了一项新规定,要求家长在获得入学疫苗个人信仰豁免之前,必须咨询临床医生。2015 年,该州完全取消了这一豁免。2019 年,立法者打击了医疗豁免,以解决疫苗拒绝者和支持他们的临床医生滥用医疗豁免的问题。本文利用 "政策反馈理论 "探讨了这些政治冲突,认为个人信仰豁免为两个联盟的出现和做法提供了依据,而这两个联盟的冲突重塑了加州的疫苗接种政策:我们分析了法律、政策、学术和媒体文件;采访了十位关键信息提供者;并使用 NVivo 20 转录软件对记录誊本进行了演绎分析:加州长期以来的疫苗接种政策无意中传播了两种根本不相容的社会规范:疫苗接种是一种选择;疫苗接种不是一种选择。随着时间的推移,拒绝接种疫苗者的文化和人数不断增加,至少部分原因是该政策认可了拒绝接种疫苗的规范:结论:加利福尼亚州 "授权+PBE "政策的长期后果--可见的、公开的和社会认可的疫苗拒种--随着时间的推移削弱了对该政策的支持,给一大批人(接种疫苗的公众),特别是家长活动家带来了明确的损失,他们的个人委屈经历推动了他们的变革动员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics, and Political Sophistication. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019. Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Why Some Nonelderly Adult Medicaid Enrollees Appear Ineligible Based on Their Annual Income.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1