Suchergebnisse

L'influence des identités et croyances politiques sur les attitudes à l'égard d'une grande diversité d'aspects de l'épidémie de Covid-19 a été soulignée dès les débuts de cette crise. Dans cet article, nous dressons un bilan de ce que les enquêtes par questionnaire réalisées au cours de l'épidémie nous disent de la relation entre vaccination et politisation. Nous souhaitons également faire un état des lieux des débats internationaux sur l'influence des identités politiques sur les attitudes à l'égard de la santé, la médecine et la science plus généralement. Les approches ancrées en psychologie cognitive et sociale dominent cette littérature. À partir du cas français, nous montrerons les apports, mais aussi les limites de ces approches. Nous proposerons certaines pistes d'articulation entre cette littérature et la sociologie française des rapports ordinaires à la politique. Ces pistes permettent de mieux comprendre la place que peuvent avoir les rapports ordinaires à la politique dans les rapports à la santé.

Cet article s'intéresse aux effets de l'institutionnalisation de la communication sur les représentations que les décideurs politiques se font de leurs publics. À partir du cas de la gestion de la pandémie de grippe A, il analyse la manière dont les experts en communication du Service d'information du gouvernement (SIG) ont légitimé auprès des gestionnaires de cette crise des représentations de la population mettant en avant sa potentielle irrationalité. Nous montrons tout d'abord que l'intégration du SIG dans ce dispositif de gestion de crise s'insère dans la continuité du processus d'institutionnalisation de l'expertise en communication. Nous soulignons ensuite le fait qu'au cours du processus de préparation à la gestion de la pandémie, les membres du SIG ont placé l'idée d'irrationalité de la population au cœur des principes de la « communication de crise » afin de valoriser leur place dans cette gestion. Or, l'adhésion à ces principes se traduit durant la crise par une vigilance accrue vis-à-vis des signes de basculement dans l'irrationalité qui sont alors portés à l'attention des décideurs. Ces signalements focaliseront l'attention de ces derniers, au détriment d'autres problématiques mises en avant par les membres du SIG. Enfin, nous insistons sur le caractère inachevé du processus de légitimation et d'institutionnalisation de l'expertise en communication. Si le SIG bénéficie d'une position au sein de la Cellule interministérielle de crise, cette position reste dominée. Ses membres doivent en permanence se battre pour faire reconnaître leur expertise lorsque celle-ci va à l'encontre du sens commun des décideurs. La faible légitimité accordée à leur expertise ne leur permet pas d'imposer leur propre interprétation des phénomènes qu'ils signalent. La légitimation des représentations irrationalisantes de la population par les experts en communication découle ainsi paradoxalement en partie de la relative illégitimité de cette forme d'expertise.

En France comme ailleurs, les autorités de santé sont aujourd'hui confrontées à une défiance inédite des populations à l'égard de la vaccination. Pour appréhender ce phénomène, les chercheurs et les experts de santé publique ont encore largement recours à l'approche traditionnelle du Public Understanding of Science ( pus ) . Cette approche défend un modèle déficitaire qui souligne les lacunes des profanes, qui seraient insuffisamment éduqués ; elle souligne aussi les multiples biais cognitifs qui affecteraient leurs perceptions ; enfin, elle diagnostique la montée d'un mouvement antiscience. Cet article dresse un état des lieux des connaissances relatives aux attitudes vis-à-vis des vaccins disponibles en France, en saisissant ce cas pour mettre la pus à l'épreuve. Il montre que la limite principale de cette approche réside dans son incapacité à intégrer la dimension sociale et culturelle de la cognition. Il esquisse, enfin, un modèle alternatif au pus qui place en son cœur la dimension culturelle de toute cognition et permet d'articuler les attitudes des individus avec l'émergence des controverses et les structures sociales.

International audience ; France is one of the countries with the highest prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in the world. In an attempt to raise vaccination coverages, the French government made on January 1, 2018 eight more vaccines mandatory in addition to the three required until then. The process that led to this policy choice is of particular interest. We describe how vaccines became contentious in France and how French authorities came to view mandatory vaccination as the solution to the rise in vaccine hesitancy. In a bold move, French public health authorities turned to a new type of institutional device grounded in the ideal of democracy and public participation to political decision-making: ``a citizen consultation''. This consultation anchored the idea that legal coercion could be the solution to France's crisis with vaccines. Time will tell whether the French extension of mandatory vaccination will reduce tensions around vaccines. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International audience ; France is one of the countries with the highest prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in the world. In an attempt to raise vaccination coverages, the French government made on January 1, 2018 eight more vaccines mandatory in addition to the three required until then. The process that led to this policy choice is of particular interest. We describe how vaccines became contentious in France and how French authorities came to view mandatory vaccination as the solution to the rise in vaccine hesitancy. In a bold move, French public health authorities turned to a new type of institutional device grounded in the ideal of democracy and public participation to political decision-making: ``a citizen consultation''. This consultation anchored the idea that legal coercion could be the solution to France's crisis with vaccines. Time will tell whether the French extension of mandatory vaccination will reduce tensions around vaccines. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract
During the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments have resorted to scientific advisory bodies to aid in public health decision-making. What then has been the public's perception of those new structures of scientific advice? In this article, we draw on a survey conducted in November 2020 among a representative sample of the French adult population (n = 1,004) designed specifically to explore public perceptions of the dedicated Covid-19 Scientific Council created in March 2020 and of scientific advice in general. After only 8 months, three-quarters of French people said they had heard of it, but only a quarter had a positive opinion about its usefulness. Despite the diversity of perceptions of what scientific advice is and should be, it appeared that scientific advice bodies are perceived as useful mainly by a public already largely supportive of the delegation of the management of public life to the government and public institutions.

Cet article prend pour objet les discours publics sur les « antivaccins ». Nous montrerons que ce terme constitue une étiquette délégitimante ancrée dans l'univers symbolique de la Science. Cet ancrage de la thématique vaccinale résulte de l'usage par les professionnels de santé d'une rhétorique de la Science mais aussi de l'investissement de mouvements pro-Science sur le sujet. Les stratégies de réponse à cette stigmatisation déployées par les critiques des vaccins contribuent paradoxalement à renforcer l'image négative des « antivaccins ». Différents acteurs – y compris critiques – contribuent ainsi à la fois à réaffirmer l'importance de la Science comme valeur à défendre et à faire de l'« antivaccin » une figure de l'anti-Science.

Research on vaccine criticism on the Internet is now at a crossroads, with an already important body of knowledge published on the subject but also a continuous and even growing interest in the scientific community. In this commentary, we reflect on the published literature from the standpoint of sociologists interested in social movements and their activists and the influence they can have on vaccination behaviors. We suggest several avenues of research for future studies of vaccine criticism on the Internet: 1) paying more attention to the actors who publish vaccine critical contents and to their use of the Internet in relationship to the other means through which they try to mobilize the population - the production of vaccine critical information on the Internet, and not only its nature and its reception, should therefore become one of the main objects of this strand of research -; 2) paying closer attention to what distinguishes the different strands of vaccine criticism regarding both what they dislike about vaccines (or about a given vaccine) and how this fight is integrated in a more general political or cultural struggle; 3) investigating further how the new forms of social interactions allowed by the Internet affect the transmission of vaccine related information and the capacity of vaccine critical actors to enroll members of the public in their political or cultural struggle.

International audience ; BACKGROUND:Confronted with a rise in vaccine hesitancy, public health officials increasingly try to involve the public in the policy decision-making process to foster consensus and public acceptability. In public debates and citizen consultations tensions can arise between the principles of science and of democracy. To illustrate this, we analyzed the 2016 citizen consultation on vaccination organized in France. This consultation led to the decision to extend mandatory vaccination.METHODS:The analysis combines qualitative and quantitative methods. We analyze the organization of the consultation and its reception using the documents provided by its organizing committee, articles of newsmedia and the contents of 299 vaccine-critical websites. Using methods from computational linguistics, we investigate the 10435 public comments posted to the consultation's official website.RESULTS:The combination of a narrow framing of debates (how to restore trust in vaccination and raise vaccination coverages) and a specific organization (latitude was given to the orientation committee with a strong presence of medical experts) was successful in avoiding legitimizing vaccine critical arguments. But these choices have been at the expense of a real reflection on the acceptability of mandatory vaccination and it did not quell vaccine-critical mobilizations.CONCLUSIONS:Public health officials must be aware that when trying to increase democratic participation into their decision-making process, how they balance inputs from the various actors and how they frame the discussion determine whether this initiative will provide meaningful information and democratic legitimacy.

International audience ; BACKGROUND:Confronted with a rise in vaccine hesitancy, public health officials increasingly try to involve the public in the policy decision-making process to foster consensus and public acceptability. In public debates and citizen consultations tensions can arise between the principles of science and of democracy. To illustrate this, we analyzed the 2016 citizen consultation on vaccination organized in France. This consultation led to the decision to extend mandatory vaccination.METHODS:The analysis combines qualitative and quantitative methods. We analyze the organization of the consultation and its reception using the documents provided by its organizing committee, articles of newsmedia and the contents of 299 vaccine-critical websites. Using methods from computational linguistics, we investigate the 10435 public comments posted to the consultation's official website.RESULTS:The combination of a narrow framing of debates (how to restore trust in vaccination and raise vaccination coverages) and a specific organization (latitude was given to the orientation committee with a strong presence of medical experts) was successful in avoiding legitimizing vaccine critical arguments. But these choices have been at the expense of a real reflection on the acceptability of mandatory vaccination and it did not quell vaccine-critical mobilizations.CONCLUSIONS:Public health officials must be aware that when trying to increase democratic participation into their decision-making process, how they balance inputs from the various actors and how they frame the discussion determine whether this initiative will provide meaningful information and democratic legitimacy.

International audience ; BACKGROUND:Confronted with a rise in vaccine hesitancy, public health officials increasingly try to involve the public in the policy decision-making process to foster consensus and public acceptability. In public debates and citizen consultations tensions can arise between the principles of science and of democracy. To illustrate this, we analyzed the 2016 citizen consultation on vaccination organized in France. This consultation led to the decision to extend mandatory vaccination.METHODS:The analysis combines qualitative and quantitative methods. We analyze the organization of the consultation and its reception using the documents provided by its organizing committee, articles of newsmedia and the contents of 299 vaccine-critical websites. Using methods from computational linguistics, we investigate the 10435 public comments posted to the consultation's official website.RESULTS:The combination of a narrow framing of debates (how to restore trust in vaccination and raise vaccination coverages) and a specific organization (latitude was given to the orientation committee with a strong presence of medical experts) was successful in avoiding legitimizing vaccine critical arguments. But these choices have been at the expense of a real reflection on the acceptability of mandatory vaccination and it did not quell vaccine-critical mobilizations.CONCLUSIONS:Public health officials must be aware that when trying to increase democratic participation into their decision-making process, how they balance inputs from the various actors and how they frame the discussion determine whether this initiative will provide meaningful information and democratic legitimacy.

International audience ; Background: Vaccination against seasonal influenza (SIV) is recommended for patients with diabetes, but their vaccination coverage is unsatisfactory in France and elsewhere. This qualitative survey of people with diabetes sought to explore 1) the extent to which SIV-related behaviour is more or less automatic; 2) reasons they choose/reject SIV; 3) their trust/distrust in authorities, science, and medicine. Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of 19 adults with diabetes in 2014. We recruited them through physicians or patient associations and implemented an analysis of thematic content. Results: Eight patients were vaccinated against flu in the preceding flu season and 11 were not. SIV uptake and refusal were stable over time and justified by multiple arguments. Coupons for free vaccines and regular doctor visits contributed to the habit of vaccination. Vaccination decisions were frequently anchored in past experiences of influenza and its vaccine. Patients often justified non-vaccination with attitudes of trivialisation/relativisation of influenza-associated risks and the perception that these can be controlled by means other than vaccination (e.g., through the avoidance of exposure). Some misbeliefs (e.g., SIV causes influenza) and doubts about SIV effectiveness and safety also existed. Several patients reported increased mistrust of SIV since the A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Patients trusted their doctors strongly regardless of their SIV behaviour, but unvaccinated patients had little trust in the government and pharmaceutical companies. Some discordances were found between perceptions and behaviour (e.g., remaining vaccinated despite doubts about SIV effectiveness or remaining unvaccinated despite feelings of vulnerability towards influenza complication), suggesting the existence of some vaccine hesitancy among patients. Conclusion: This study among patients with diabetes suggest that SIV uptake is stable, thanks to a favourable environment. Nonetheless, SIV refusal is also stable over time. Unvaccinated patients used multiple arguments to justify SIV refusal, including compensatory health beliefs. Physicians should take every opportunity to recommend SIV. The necessary individualised patient education regarding SIV requires better physician training in patients priorities. While almost all patients strongly trust their doctors, unvaccinated patients distrust distal stakeholders: it is absolutely essential to restore trust in them and to develop new more effective influenza vaccines.

International audience ; Background: Vaccination against seasonal influenza (SIV) is recommended for patients with diabetes, but their vaccination coverage is unsatisfactory in France and elsewhere. This qualitative survey of people with diabetes sought to explore 1) the extent to which SIV-related behaviour is more or less automatic; 2) reasons they choose/reject SIV; 3) their trust/distrust in authorities, science, and medicine. Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of 19 adults with diabetes in 2014. We recruited them through physicians or patient associations and implemented an analysis of thematic content. Results: Eight patients were vaccinated against flu in the preceding flu season and 11 were not. SIV uptake and refusal were stable over time and justified by multiple arguments. Coupons for free vaccines and regular doctor visits contributed to the habit of vaccination. Vaccination decisions were frequently anchored in past experiences of influenza and its vaccine. Patients often justified non-vaccination with attitudes of trivialisation/relativisation of influenza-associated risks and the perception that these can be controlled by means other than vaccination (e.g., through the avoidance of exposure). Some misbeliefs (e.g., SIV causes influenza) and doubts about SIV effectiveness and safety also existed. Several patients reported increased mistrust of SIV since the A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Patients trusted their doctors strongly regardless of their SIV behaviour, but unvaccinated patients had little trust in the government and pharmaceutical companies. Some discordances were found between perceptions and behaviour (e.g., remaining vaccinated despite doubts about SIV effectiveness or remaining unvaccinated despite feelings of vulnerability towards influenza complication), suggesting the existence of some vaccine hesitancy among patients. Conclusion: This study among patients with diabetes suggest that SIV uptake is stable, thanks to a favourable environment. Nonetheless, SIV refusal is also stable over time. Unvaccinated patients used multiple arguments to justify SIV refusal, including compensatory health beliefs. Physicians should take every opportunity to recommend SIV. The necessary individualised patient education regarding SIV requires better physician training in patients priorities. While almost all patients strongly trust their doctors, unvaccinated patients distrust distal stakeholders: it is absolutely essential to restore trust in them and to develop new more effective influenza vaccines.

International audience ; Background: Vaccination against seasonal influenza (SIV) is recommended for patients with diabetes, but their vaccination coverage is unsatisfactory in France and elsewhere. This qualitative survey of people with diabetes sought to explore 1) the extent to which SIV-related behaviour is more or less automatic; 2) reasons they choose/reject SIV; 3) their trust/distrust in authorities, science, and medicine. Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of 19 adults with diabetes in 2014. We recruited them through physicians or patient associations and implemented an analysis of thematic content. Results: Eight patients were vaccinated against flu in the preceding flu season and 11 were not. SIV uptake and refusal were stable over time and justified by multiple arguments. Coupons for free vaccines and regular doctor visits contributed to the habit of vaccination. Vaccination decisions were frequently anchored in past experiences of influenza and its vaccine. Patients often justified non-vaccination with attitudes of trivialisation/relativisation of influenza-associated risks and the perception that these can be controlled by means other than vaccination (e.g., through the avoidance of exposure). Some misbeliefs (e.g., SIV causes influenza) and doubts about SIV effectiveness and safety also existed. Several patients reported increased mistrust of SIV since the A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Patients trusted their doctors strongly regardless of their SIV behaviour, but unvaccinated patients had little trust in the government and pharmaceutical companies. Some discordances were found between perceptions and behaviour (e.g., remaining vaccinated despite doubts about SIV effectiveness or remaining unvaccinated despite feelings of vulnerability towards influenza complication), suggesting the existence of some vaccine hesitancy among patients. Conclusion: This study among patients with diabetes suggest that SIV uptake is stable, thanks to a favourable environment. Nonetheless, SIV refusal ...

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public debates overtly addressed the promises of new innovative treatments. Many of these debates pitted those who advocated for the development of new treatments by pharmaceutical companies against those who favored the repositioning of existing drugs. Our study explored perceptions of the association between drug novelty and effectiveness as well as perceptions of the role of the pharmaceutical industry in drug development. Data were collected in January 2021 from a quota sample of the French population aged 18–75 years (N = 1,000) during the second round of the "Health Literacy Survey 2019" (HLS19). We tested the hypothesis that individuals with a high level of familiarity with the health care system and those with a high level of trust in institutions are more likely to agree that new drugs are more effective than old ones and that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry. A quarter (25%) of respondents agreed that new drugs are always more effective than old ones. Agreement with this statement was stronger among respondents with a high level of familiarity with the health care system (as measured by the Navigational Health Literacy score, OR 3.34 [2.13-5.24]) and among those with a high level of trust in pharmaceutical companies or politicians. A high level of trust in pharmaceutical companies was reported by 42% of respondents, and 43% agreed that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry. Respondents who agreed that new drugs are always more effective than old ones were almost four times more likely to agree that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry (OR 3.85 [2.76-5.39]). A better understanding of public attitudes towards new treatments is needed to elucidate individual preferences in health care and their consequences on health behavior.