Medical student attitudes on vaccination relevance: A mixed-method study

PLoS One. 2022 Aug 24;17(8):e0273529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273529. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Background and objectives: The study aims to investigate the attitudes of medical students regarding the importance and relevance of vaccinations, whether vaccinations should be compulsory and how to employ a new teaching concept to deal with vaccination-critical parents.

Methods: This mixed-method study consists of a quantitative questionnaire and focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed by calculating the descriptive statistics, and interviews were analysed using Mayring's content analysis.

Results: A total of 170 medical students completed the questionnaire, and 59 students participated in 9 focus groups. Students reported that they felt more confident dealing with vaccination-critical parents after learning the new teaching concept. Similar results were found for medical students prior to and during the pandemic. During the pandemic, medical students viewed vaccinations for several diseases, such as measles or COVID-19, as important (range: M = 3.56, SD = 0.54 to M = 3.97, SD = 0.17). Similar results were found for medical students prior to the pandemic (range: M = 3.26, SD = 0.77 to M = 3.94, SD = 0.24). In the focus groups, however, medical students displayed controversial attitudes regarding compulsory vaccinations.

Conclusions: While the medical students agreed on the use of vaccination for highly infectious diseases, their level of agreement decreased depending on the severity of the disease. Practical recommendations that come out of the study are creating a trustful relationship with and delivering information to patients.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • COVID-19* / epidemiology
  • COVID-19* / prevention & control
  • Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
  • Humans
  • Students, Medical*
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Vaccination

Grants and funding

We acknowledge support with financing publication fees by ‘Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’ and the Open Access Publishing Fund of the University of Tuebingen. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.