Nurses and midwives have a professional obligation to promote health and prevent disease, and therefore they have an essential role to play in vaccination. Despite this, some nurses and midwives have been found to take an anti-vaccination stance and promulgate misinformation about vaccines, often using Facebook as a platform to do so.
Research question:
This article reports on one component and dataset from a larger study – ‘the positives, perils and pitfalls of Facebook for nurses’. It explores the specific issue of nurses and midwives who take an anti-vaccination stance, deemed to be unprofessional by crossing professional boundaries and by providing medical information on Facebook that is not within their scope of practice.
Participants:
Data were collected via an online worldwide survey from nurse and midwife participants, distributed and ‘snowballed’ through relevant nursing and midwifery groups on Facebook. In total, 1644 Registered Nurses and Midwives, and Enrolled Nurses worldwide attempted the online survey. There were 1100 (66.9%) completed surveys and 54 partially (33.1%) completed surveys. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted online using Skype® with 17 participants in Australia.
Ethical considerations:
Ethical processes and procedures have been adhered to relating to privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of the participants.
Findings/results:
A mixed-methods approach was used, including descriptive and content analysis of the quantitative survey data and thematic analysis of the qualitative interview data. The main theme ‘blurred boundaries’ was generated, which comprised three sub-themes: ‘follow the science, ‘abuse of power and erosion of trust’ and ‘the moral and ethical responsibility to safeguard public health’. The results offer an important and unique understanding of how nurses and midwives interpret the conduct of fellow health professionals as unprofessional and crossing the professional boundary if they used Facebook to promulgate anti-vaccination messages and/or give medical advice online.
Conclusion:
There are many positives and negatives for nurses and midwives associated with using Facebook for personal and professional communication, which is in keeping with the results of the larger study from which this article is taken. Professional behaviour is a key theme in the larger research as is the ethical construct of ‘every act has a consequence’; however, in this article, the theme ‘blurred boundaries’ offers an overall understanding of how nurses and midwives interpret the behaviour of their colleagues who espouse anti-vaccination sentiment and/or give medical advice online that is outside their scope of practice and education.
WakefieldAJ. MMR vaccination and autism. Lancet1999; 354: 949–950.
7.
WakefieldAJMontgomerySM. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly. Adv Drug React Toxicol Rev2000; 19: 265.
8.
FlahertyDK. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Ann Pharmacother2011; 45(10): 1302–1304.
OrrDBaram-TsabariALandsmanK. Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: the Polio vaccine on Facebook. Isr J Health Policy Res2016; 5: 34.
11.
KataA.Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine2012; 30: 3778–3789.
12.
BetschCRenkewitzFBetschT, et al.The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks. J Health Psychol2010; 15(3): 446–455.
13.
BuchananRBeckettRD. Assessment of vaccination-related information for consumers available on Facebook®. Health Inform Lib J2014; 31(3): 227–234.
14.
SmithNGrahamT. Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Inform Commun Soc2019; 22: 1310–1327.
GreenJ.PettyJ.WhitingL.OrrF.WalkerK.BrownA-M.CrispE.FowlerC.JonesL. (**). The Impact of the Anti-Vaccination Movement and Vaccine Hesitancy on the Health of the Child. Pediatric Nursing. (accepted for publication Aug 2021).
19.
GreenJ.Nurses’ online behaviour: lessons for the nursing profession. Contemporary Nurse2017; 53(3): 355–367.
20.
GoffmanE. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Harmondsworth, 1978.
CohenNArieliT. Field research in conflict environments: methodological challenges and snowball sampling. J Peace Res2011; 48: 423–435.
28.
Brickman BhuttaC.Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. Sociol Meth Res2012; 41(1): 57–88.
29.
GillPStewartKTreasureE, et al.Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J2008; 204(6): 291–295.
30.
BrownKMElliottSJLeatherdaleST, et al.Searching for rigour in the reporting of mixed methods population health research: a methodological review. Health Educ Res2015; 30(6): 811–839.
31.
MoseholmEFettersMD. Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodol Innovat2017; 10(2): 2059799117703118.
32.
TownsendLWallaceC. Social media research: a guide to ethics. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2016, pp. 1–16.
33.
LunnayBBorlagdanJMcNaughtonD, et al.Ethical use of social media to facilitate qualitative research. Qual Health Res2014; 25: 99–109.
34.
BuchananEAHvizdakEE. Online survey tools: ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. J Emp Res Human Res Ethics2009; 4: 37–48.
35.
AlessiEJMartinJI. Conducting an internet-based survey: benefits, pitfalls, and lessons learned. Soc Work Res2010; 34: 122–128.
36.
CookseyRW. Descriptive statistics for summarising data. In: Illustrating statistical procedures: finding meaning in quantitative data, 2020, pp. 61–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2537-7_5
37.
VaismoradiMTurunenHBondasT. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci2013; 15: 398–405.
38.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006; 3: 77–101.
BirksMRalphNCantR, et al.Science knowledge needed for nursing practice: a cross-sectional survey of Australian Registered Nurses. Collegian2018; 25: 209–215.
43.
BirksMRalphNCantR, et al.Teaching science content in nursing programs in Australia: a cross-sectional survey of academics. BMC Nurs2015; 14: 24–29.
WilliamsSE. What are the factors that contribute to parental vaccine-hesitancy and what can we do about it. Hum Vaccin Immunother2014; 10(9): 2584–2596.
ManningMLGerolamoAMMarinoMA, et al.COVID-19 vaccination readiness among nurse faculty and student nurses. Nurse Outlook. Epub ahead of print 5 February 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2021.01.019.
55.
WilsonRZaytsevaABocquierA, et al.Vaccine hesitancy and self-vaccination behaviors among nurses in south-eastern France. Vaccine2020; 38: 1144–1151.
56.
AskelsonK. Ochsner Lafayette General issues statement about Olivia Guidry, nurse who died after COVID diagnosis. Acadiana Advocate. https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/(12 July 2021, accessed 14 July 2021).
57.
KataA. A postmodern Pandora’s box: anti-vaccination mis- information on the Internet. Vaccine2010; 28(7): 1709–1716.
DouglasKMSuttonRMCichockaA. The psychology of conspiracy theories. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2017; 26: 538–542.
60.
RomerDJamiesonKH. Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. Soc Sci Med2020; 263: 113356–113356.
61.
SuttonRMDouglasKM. Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset: implications for political ideology. Curr Opin Behav Sci2020; 34: 118–122.
62.
WoodMJ. Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: implications for theory and measurement. Br J Psychol2017; 108(3): 507–527.
63.
GarrettRKWeeksBE. Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLoS ONE2017; 12: e0184733.
64.
BrowneMThomsonPRockloffMJ, et al.Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the vaccination confidence gap. PLoS ONE2015; 10: e0132562.
65.
SurowieckiJ. The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor, 2005.
