Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Public Health 2006 16(1):85-88; doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki058
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nagaraj, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nagaraj, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

Infectious Diseases

Does qualitative synthesis of anecdotal evidence with that from scientific research help in understanding public health issues: a review of low MMR uptake

Anandhi Nagaraj

Herefordshire PCT, Hereford, UK

Correspondence: Dr Anandhi Nagaraj MD, DFPHM, Specialist Registrar in Public Health, 38 Hampton Dene Road, Hereford HR1 1UX, UK, tel: 01432 358381, e-mail: Anandhi.Nagaraj{at}wyreforest-pct.nhs.uk

Study objective: To explore the professional and parental factors underlying low MMR uptake by qualitative synthesis of evidence from technical and non-technical anecdotal literature. Methods: An intensive investigation of literature covering research, press, online, E groups and grey literature was carried out using devised search strategies. Key themes were identified from both the research and anecdotal evidence, which were merged to form common themes. Results: The review of technical literature identified media scare and inadequate information from health professionals as the main reasons for non-uptake of MMR. The non-technical anecdotal evidence showed that professionals' belief in parental right to choose, target payments and fear of autism were the major factors. Conclusions: Anecdotal evidence may contribute to evidence-based public health practice, especially in widely debated public health issues.

Keywords: complementary medicine and MMR vaccination, MMR vaccination uptake, MMR vaccine, religion and MMR, review


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J Public HealthHome page
W. J. Stronegger and W. Freidl
A hierarchical analysis of social determinants of measles vaccination coverage in Austrian schoolchildren
Eur J Public Health, November 30, 2009; (2009) ckp188v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.