For neither MI nor LMI parents did having to arrange their own appointment time particularly facilitate or hinder taking their child for MMR (as indicated by a mean score close to 0). However,

for all parents, if they could get hold of the single antigen vaccines then they would be less likely to attend for MMR (as indicated by a negative mean score). Parents were also somewhat hindered by: having to take an older child for vaccinations (compared to a young infant); information in the media; being worried about taking their child. Conversely, deciding to tell the child that they were going for vaccinations was more likely to facilitate attendance. For dTaP/IPV, consistent Venetoclax manufacturer with the finding that perceived control did not predict intention, none of the 14 beliefs differed significantly between LMI parents and MI parents at p ≤ 0.002.

For all parents: having enough information; having pre-arranged appointments; having free time; being sent reminders; having support from healthcare professionals; having a child who was 100% fit and well; being immunised as a child; deciding to tell the child that they are going for vaccinations, tended to facilitate attendance (indicated by a positive mean score on the item). However, having to arrange their Talazoparib in vivo own appointment time (LMI parents only); having to take an older child for vaccinations (compared to a young infant); availability of the single antigen vaccines; information in the media (LMI parents only); being worried about taking their child for dTaP/IPV, tended to hinder attendance (indicated by a negative mean score on the item). Parental fear of ‘needles’ was not a barrier to immunisation in either group. This is the first study to use a questionnaire, based on qualitative interviews with parents [3] and [4] and the TPB [10] and [11], to predict and compare parents’ the intentions to take preschoolers for either a second MMR or dTaP/IPV. The prediction that there would be differences between the two vaccinations, both in the strength of the beliefs measured and in the extent to which they predicted parents’

intentions, was only partially supported. Generally, parents had positive attitudes towards immunising, moderating strong subjective norms and high perceived behavioural control. Nonetheless, regression analyses revealed that intention to immunise with either MMR or dTaP/IPV was underpinned by different factors. For MMR, intention was predicted by attitude and perceived control: parents with more positive attitudes and greater perceptions of control had stronger intentions to immunise. For dTaP/IPV, attitude and ‘number of children in the family’ predicted intention: parents with more positive attitudes and more children had greater intentions to immunise. Thus, although these findings provide some support for the predictive value of the TPB, there was a direct, unmediated effect of number of children on intention to immunise with dTaP/IPV. The TPB would predict no such effect.