# Optional Vaccines, Collective Risk

## TL;DR

How vaccines are framed as routine or optional affects vaccination rates and public trust.

## Contribution

The paper highlights how framing vaccines as optional can reduce uptake and trust, even when shared decision-making is intended.

## Key findings

- Framing vaccines as discretionary may increase uncertainty and reduce uptake.
- Routine vaccine recommendations help maintain trust and efficient preventive care.
- Ambiguity in vaccine communication can affect global vaccine confidence.

## Abstract

Vaccination effectiveness depends not only on biological efficacy but also on how recommendations are framed and communicated in clinical practice. When vaccines are presented as routine standard of care, uptake remains high and responsibility is shared across clinicians, institutions, and communities. In contrast, framing vaccine recommendations as discretionary through shared clinical decision-making may unintentionally generate uncertainty, increase decisional burden for families, and reduce vaccine uptake. In a globally connected information environment, such ambiguity can extend beyond national borders, influencing vaccine confidence in health systems with limited capacity to manage uncertainty. This editorial argues that the issue lies not in shared decision-making itself, but in how “optional” framing is interpreted by clinicians and the public. Maintaining clear, routine vaccine recommendations is essential to sustaining trust, supporting efficient preventive care, and protecting population health.