Reject, Delay, or Consent? Parents’ Internet Discussions of the HPV Vaccine for Children and Implications for HPV Vaccine Uptake

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to investigate how parents and caregivers describe their concerns about the HPV vaccine for their children on open Internet websites. The study examines what the discourse among parents reveals about their concerns regarding the HPV vaccine.

Methodology/approach

Our exploratory study utilized a grounded theory approach as a method of collecting data and simultaneously formulating research questions based on emerging themes from the data. We used purposeful sampling to select sets of comments posted on websites that provided news, scientific information, or parental support regarding HPV and its vaccine.

Findings

Findings suggest support for Bond and Nolan’s (2011) theory that familiarity with a disease is central to parents’ assessment of risk, and that dread of a serious disease such as cervical cancer is weaker than dread of unknown possible side effects in parents’ motivation to give or withhold the vaccine for their children.

Research limitations/implications

Research limitations include our usage of a purposeful convenience sample of websites. The limitation of this sampling technique is that the comments made by website “users” and used in the analysis may not be representative of the wider population, and may include Americans as well as non-Americans.

Originality/value of chapter

Our research fills an important gap in the literature by looking at the ways in which parents share their concerns about the HPV vaccine on Internet websites as they consider whether to reject, delay, or consent to the vaccine.

Citation

Livingston, K., Sutherland, K.M. and Sardi, L.M. (2014), "Reject, Delay, or Consent? Parents’ Internet Discussions of the HPV Vaccine for Children and Implications for HPV Vaccine Uptake", Technology, Communication, Disparities and Government Options in Health and Health Care Services (Research in the Sociology of Health Care, Vol. 32), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0275-495920140000032018