An official website of the United States government
Substantial research indicates that local explanatory models of disease shape heath behaviors. However, less is known regarding how cultural models of disease influence interpretations of vaccines. Vaccination decisions are based around a plethora of social and cultural factors, including beliefs about disease, cultural-historical experiences with healthcare, and recent vaccination experiences. To understand how local interpretations of vaccination influence vaccination-decision making, we explore cultural models of health, vaccine norms, and COVID-19 beliefs and experiences in Himba and Herero pastoralists of the Kunene region of northern Namibia. Mixed sex focus groups were conducted in July and August of 2024 in communities across a rural and peri-urban gradient. Discussion prompts were designed to elicit dialogue on vaccination beliefs, norms, and experiences, as well as their recent experience with COVID-19. Results from these focus groups indicate that there was substantial confusion differentiating vaccinations from other types of injections. For childhood vaccines, immunization is normative and expected. Women were the primary decision-makers for childhood immunization, reflecting the matrilineal bias of Himba and Herero kinship. For adults, while local leaders had some influence interfacing with public health outreach, the decision to get vaccinated was largely a personal one. Beliefs about COVID-19 were interpreted through pre-existing cultural models of illness, and beliefs about the origins of COVID-19 reflected mistrust in international actors. Fears about COVID-19 vaccines were common, particularly concerns about vaccine safety. However, fears of the illness typically overrode fears of the vaccine, and most report receiving the vaccine despite these worries. These results highlight the importance of extending research beyond a knowledge, attitude, practice framework to incorporate local explanatory models and cultural-historical experiences in understanding vaccine-decision making. These features are particularly important in more traditional, rural, and marginalized populations where medical mistrust is common and local explanatory models of disease drive healthcare decision-making.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on April 21, 2026
The Role of Medical Mistrust in Vaccination Decisions in Rural, Indigenous Namibian Communities
Objectives Substantial inequalities in access to healthcare are common in rural and marginalized populations in the Global South, and these inequalities can drive health disparities. Historical mistrust of healthcare institutions can further impact healthcare behaviors, including vaccination. Here, we apply the concept of medical mistrust, which has been widely applied to healthcare decisions in industrialized countries, across a rural–urban spectrum of communities in Namibia, and assess its utility in understanding vaccination decisions. Methods Otjiherero-speaking indigenous communities of Kunene, Namibia, were surveyed to assess medical mistrust. Participants also answered questions about COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine safety, and interest in a hypothetical malaria vaccine. Bayesian multilevel models were used to compare medical mistrust across communities and its influence on vaccination and vaccine perceptions. Results The level of medical mistrust varied across contexts, with the highest level of mistrust in peri-urban communities. Medical mistrust predicted beliefs about vaccine safety and interest in the malaria vaccine, but not COVID-19 vaccine status, which was largely driven by access to the vaccine. For rural and peri-urban Himba, participants also expressed disinterest in the COVID-19 vaccine and worries about its safety. Conclusion Addressing global health disparities requires understanding how locally contextualized social and ecological experiences shape healthcare and vaccination decisions. Results of this study show fundamental differences in medical mistrust by community, which may be contributing to beliefs about vaccines. Understanding how medical mistrust varies across these contexts, and how it impacts perceptions about vaccination, can inform health communication and public policy in underserved communities.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2438025
- PAR ID:
- 10610728
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Nature
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
- ISSN:
- 2197-3792
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Perceptions of healthcare personnel and institutions substantially impact healthcare behaviors. In the US, minority experiences with racist events like the Tuskegee study, alongside everyday experiences of marginalization and discrimination, drive medical mistrust in populations that are already burdened with health inequalities. However, the concept of medical mistrust is rarely applied outside of industrialized contexts. Histories of colonialism, underfunded healthcare institutions, and the enormous cultural and ethnolinguistic diversity present in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) make medical mistrust a likely contributor to health behavior in these contexts. In the era of COVID-19 and emergent malaria vaccines, there is an urgent need to mitigate factors leading to medical mistrust, which impedes interest in novel vaccines. Doing so requires substantial investment in research that examines the causes of medical mistrust across diverse communities, develops methodological tools that can effectively measure medical mistrust across diverse cultural and ethno-linguistic contexts, and applies this data to policy and public health messaging. This commentary highlights the role of medical mistrust in vaccination and argues for its utility in addressing vaccine decision-making in LMICs.more » « less
-
Extensive work in the social sciences suggests that vaccination decisions are subject to incentives, biases, and social learning processes, including prestige bias transmission. High status figures, like doctors and public health officials, can be effective messengers for vaccination information and uptake under certain conditions. In communities where there is significant medical mistrust and less interaction with markets and formal medical systems, prestige bias social learning may operate through different channels. Here, we examine the role of prestige bias on vaccine decisions in two ethnic groups (Himba and Herero) with varying levels of market integration and experiences with formal healthcare systems. Participants completed a ranking task, comparing the influence of four prestigious individuals on vaccine decisions and a survey on medical mistrust. Using Plackett-Luce models, we compare the influence of location, ethnic affiliation, and other covariates on rankings. A multi-level model compared the influence of those within and outside one's ethnic group, as well as specialist (doctor/healer) and generalist (chief/governor) prestige figures. Results indicate changes in the rank of prestigious individuals across the rural-urban gradient. Our results demonstrate significant variability in prestige-biased social learning about vaccine decision making. Medical mistrust did not impact rankings. Contrary to previous work, we find that whether a prestigious individual is locally prominent is more important than their expertise in the relevant domain (health and healing). These findings emphasize the need for more context-specific studies of prestige bias, which can improve our understanding of healthcare decision-making and guide public health messaging across diverse contexts.more » « less
-
Despite their disparate rates of infection and mortality, many communities of color report high levels of vaccine hesitancy. This paper describes racial differences in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Detroit, and assesses, using a mediation model, how individuals’ personal experiences with COVID-19 and trust in authorities mediate racial disparities in vaccination acceptance. The Detroit Metro Area Communities Study (DMACS) is a panel survey of a representative sample of Detroit residents. There were 1012 respondents in the October 2020 wave, of which 856 (83%) were followed up in June 2021. We model the impact of race and ethnicity on vaccination uptake using multivariable logistic regression, and report mediation through direct experiences with COVID as well as trust in government and in healthcare providers. Within Detroit, only 58% of Non-Hispanic (NH) Black residents were vaccinated, compared to 82% of Non-Hispanic white Detroiters, 50% of Hispanic Detroiters, and 52% of other racial/ethnic groups. Trust in healthcare providers and experiences with friends and family dying from COVID-19 varied significantly by race/ethnicity. The mediation analysis reveals that 23% of the differences in vaccine uptake by race could be eliminated if NH Black Detroiters were to have levels of trust in healthcare providers similar to those among NH white Detroiters. Our analyses suggest that efforts to improve relationships among healthcare providers and NH Black communities in Detroit are critical to overcoming local COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Increased study of and intervention in these communities is critical to building trust and managing widespread health crises.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundAs Namibia attempts to eradicate locally transmitted cases of malaria, epidemiological strategies, interventions, and outreach require a sound understanding of indigenous knowledge and practice. Research describing local explanatory models of disease can be of value in these efforts by elucidating how disease is interpreted and treated. To understand how perceptions of malaria infection and treatment may influence health-seeking behaviour, cultural models of the disease were explored in two ethnic groups in rural northwest Namibia. MethodsMixed-sex focus groups of 4–8 individuals were conducted in the Kunene region of Namibia. All participants were either Himba or Herero and lived between 14 and 57 km of the regional town centre of Opuwo. Discussion prompts were designed to assess knowledge, beliefs, and norms about malaria, including causes, symptoms, treatment, and prevention. ResultsFocus groups reported universal difficulty in discrimination between malaria and respiratory infections, the former of which was often only diagnosed at the hospital. Some recognized mosquitoes as the source of malaria, particularly the more formally educated Herero, but all also reported other causes. Notably these causes, including dietary and temperature-based origins, were considered unavoidable. Himba and Herero believed that malaria was infectious person-to-person and incorrectly believed that malaria was most common during the wintertime. Both groups also relied on a number of traditional remedies to alleviate symptoms, which were used as primary treatment, with formal healthcare treatment typically only sought when the illness progressed. ConclusionsThese results highlight significant differences between local cultural models and biomedical ones that could be detrimental to malaria eradication efforts. Kunene pastoralists have limited understanding of the causes of malaria, and beliefs about environmental and dietary causes may undermine attempts at prevention. Seeking healthcare solutions to malaria was normative, but secondary to use of at home traditional remedies. These findings indicate public health outreach and information campaigns are needed, particularly in rural groups with less formal education.more » « less
