Cross-sectional study observes high vaccine hesitancy despite positive vaccination attitudes in breastfeeding mothers, suggesting health literacy nuance shapes immunization decisions.
Purpose: This cross-sectional analytical study aimed to assess breastfeeding mothers’ attitudes toward childhood vaccination, levels of vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine literacy, and examine the relationships between these variables, as well as associated sociodemographic factors.Materials and Methods: The study included 120 breastfeeding mothers attending the Pediatric Health and Diseases outpatient clinic at Balikesir Universty between April and May 2025. Data were collected via face-to-face interviews using a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Attitudes Toward Vaccination Scale, the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, and the Vaccine Literacy Scale.Results: While 82.5% reported having their children vaccinated, 61.7% experienced partial or complete hesitation.. Mothers of male children had significantly higher total vaccination attitude scores and communicative and critical literacy scores. Participants believing vaccines had no side effects demonstrated more positive attitudes and lower hesitancy levels . Functional literacy was negatively correlated with both hesitancy and negative attitudes (p<0.001). Despite a generally positive view of vaccination, 67.5% believed vaccines have side effects, with autism (82.7%), infertility (80.2%), and fever (86.4%).Conclusion: Although breastfeeding mothers largely support childhood vaccination, vaccine hesitancy remains common, mainly driven by concerns about misinformation and possible side effects. In our study, higher vaccine literacy particularly at the functional level was unexpectedly linked to less favorable vaccination attitudes and greater hesitancy. This suggests that increased exposure to vaccine-related information does not always lead to greater acceptance and that how information is understood and interpreted may be more important than the amount of information available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aycan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: