Multi-tiered intervention to increase maternal immunization coverage: A randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a multi-component intervention package of maternal immunization uptake in obstetric care clinics.

METHODS

In a multi-level, cluster- and individually-randomized controlled trial we implemented an evidence-based intervention that targeted practice-, provider- and patient-level barriers to vaccine uptake. Obstetric practices were randomized to receive the practice and provider-level interventions or continue their normal standard of care. We enrolled pregnant women at practices in Georgia and Colorado and randomized women into patient-level intervention and control groups, resulting in four study arms. The primary outcomes were receipt of the influenza and tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines during pregnancy. A sample size of 550 women per arm (2200 total) was planned and enrolled to compare the intervention between the four study arms.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and July 2018, 4907 women were screened and 2200 women were randomized, 550 to each of the four study arms. We were unable to follow-up with 108 women, for a final sample size of 2092. Sample characteristics and sample size were similar among study arms. There was no significant increase in Tdap or influenza vaccine uptake overall. Among women who had no intention of or were unsure about receiving the influenza vaccine during pregnancy, those who received just the patient-level intervention were 61% more likely to receive the influenza vaccine than those in the control arm (Relative risk: 1.61; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.18-2.21). There was no significant difference in vaccine uptake for either influenza or tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis between the four arms of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial highlights the need for more targeted interventions to improve vaccine uptake. Future work should focus on clinics with low baseline vaccine uptake and the patient-level intervention should be expanded and targeted towards women with low vaccine confidence.

Use of Random Domain Intercept Technology to Track COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Real-Time Across the United States: Survey Study

Background

Accurate and timely COVID-19 vaccination coverage data are vital for informing targeted, effective messaging and outreach and identifying barriers to equitable health service access. However, gathering vaccination rate data is challenging, and efforts often result in information that is either limited in scope (eg, limited to administrative data) or delayed (impeding the ability to rapidly respond). The evaluation of innovative technologies and approaches that can assist in addressing these limitations globally are needed.

Objective

The objective of this survey study was to assess the validity of Random Domain Intercept Technology (RDIT; RIWI Corp) for tracking self-reported vaccination rates in real time at the US national and state levels. RDIT—a form of online intercept sampling—has the potential to address the limitations of current vaccination tracking systems by allowing for the measurement of additional data (eg, attitudinal data) and real-time, rapid data collection anywhere there is web access.

Methods

We used RDIT from June 30 to July 26, 2021, to reach a broad sample of US adult (aged ≥18 years) web users and asked questions related to COVID-19 vaccination. Self-reported vaccination status was used as the focus of this validation exercise. National- and state-level RDIT-based vaccination rates were compared to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–reported national and state vaccination rates. Johns Hopkins University’s and Emory University’s institutional review boards designated this project as public health practice to inform message development (not human subjects research).

Results

By using RDIT, 63,853 adult web users reported their vaccination status (6.2% of the entire 1,026,850 American web-using population that was exposed to the survey). At the national level, the RDIT-based estimate of adult COVID-19 vaccine coverage was slightly higher (44,524/63,853, 69.7%; 95% CI 69.4%-70.1%) than the CDC-reported estimate (67.9%) on July 15, 2021 (ie, midway through data collection; t_63,852=10.06; P<.001). The RDIT-based and CDC-reported state-level estimates were strongly and positively correlated (r=0.90; P<.001). RDIT-based estimates were within 5 percentage points of the CDC’s estimates for 29 states.

Conclusions

This broad-reaching, real-time data stream may provide unique advantages for tracking the use of a range of vaccines and for the timely evaluation of vaccination interventions. Moreover, RDIT could be harnessed to rapidly assess demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral constructs that are not available in administrative data, which could allow for deeper insights into the real-time predictors of vaccine uptake–enabling targeted and timely interventions.

Masks, money, and mandates: A national survey on efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination intentions in the United States

Various efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates have been employed in the United States. We sought to rapidly investigate public reactions to these efforts to increase vaccination, including self-reported responses to widespread reduced masking behavior, monetary incentive programs to get vaccinated, and work vaccination requirements. Using a unique method for data collection (Random Domain Intercept Technology), we captured a large (N = 14,152), broad-based sample of the United States Web-using population (data collected from June 30 -July 26, 2021). About 3/4 of respondents reported being vaccinated. The likelihood of vaccination and vaccination intention differed across various demographic indicators (e.g., gender, age, income, political leaning). We observed mixed reactions to efforts aimed at increasing vaccination rates among unvaccinated respondents. While some reported that specific efforts would increase their likelihood of getting vaccinated (between 16% and 32%), others reported that efforts would decrease their likelihood of getting vaccinated (between 17% and 42%). Reactions differed by general vaccination intention, as well as other demographic indicators (e.g., race, education). Our results highlight the need to fully understand reactions to policy changes, programs, and mandates before they are communicated to the public and employed. Moreover, the results emphasize the importance of understanding how reactions differ across groups, as this information can assist in targeting intervention efforts and minimizing potentially differential negative impact.

Evaluation of Trends in Homeschooling Rates After Elimination of Nonmedical Exemptions to Childhood Immunizations in California, 2012-2020

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, California passed Senate Bill No. 277 (SB 277) and became the first state in more than 30 years to eliminate nonmedical exemptions to mandatory childhood immunizations for school entry. One concern that emerged was that the law created an incentive for parents to remove children from brick-and-mortar schools to bypass the immunization requirements.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the trends in homeschooling rates after the elimination of nonmedical exemptions to the requirement of childhood immunizations for school entry.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This preintervention-postintervention cross-sectional study calculated homeschooling rates as the number of students in kindergarten through grade 8 (K-8) enrolled through each of California's 3 homeschooling mechanisms (independent study program, private school affidavit, and private school satellite program) divided by all K-8 students enrolled in the same academic year. Data on homeschooling rates were obtained from the California Department of Education. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted using a linear regression model in which the outcome variable was the percentage of students enrolled in a homeschool program before and after SB 277. Data were collected and analyzed from October 3, 2012, to October 2, 2019.

INTERVENTION

Passage of SB 277, which eliminated nonmedical exemptions to childhood immunizations for school entry.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Homeschooling rates for K-8 students.

RESULTS

Among the students included in the analysis, the homeschooling enrollment for K-8 students in California increased from 35 122 students (0.8%) during the 2012-2013 school year to 86 574 students (1.9%) during the 2019-2020 school year; however, the implementation of SB 277 was not associated with an increase in the percentage of students enrolled in homeschooling programs in California beyond the secular trend. The increase in homeschooling was greatest for the lower grade levels: kindergarten homeschooling enrollment increased from 2068 students (0.4%) in the 2012-2013 school year to 10 553 students (1.9%) in the 2019-2020 school year, whereas the grade 8 homeschool enrollment rate increased from 5146 students (1.0%) in the 2012-2013 school year to 10 485 students (2.0%) in the 2019-2020 school year. Independent study programs accounted for 20 149 students (45.3%) of homeschooling enrollment, private school affidavits accounted for 19 333 students (43.5%), and private school satellite programs accounted for 4935 students (11.1%) during the 2015-2016 school year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that legislative action to limit nonmedical exemptions for compulsory vaccination for school entry is not associated with removal of students from classroom-based instruction in brick-and-mortar institutions.

Promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: recommendations from the Lancet Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA

Since the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the USA in January, 2020, over 46 million people in the country have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorisations from the US Food and Drug Administration, with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine receiving full approval on Aug 23, 2021. When paired with masking, physical distancing, and ventilation, COVID-19 vaccines are the best intervention to sustainably control the pandemic. However, surveys have consistently found that a sizeable minority of US residents do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The most severe consequence of an inadequate uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has been sustained community transmission (including of the delta [B.1.617.2] variant, a surge of which began in July, 2021). Exacerbating the direct impact of the virus, a low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines will prolong the social and economic repercussions of the pandemic on families and communities, especially low-income and minority ethnic groups, into 2022, or even longer. The scale and challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign are unprecedented. Therefore, through a series of recommendations, we present a coordinated, evidence-based education, communication, and behavioural intervention strategy that is likely to improve the success of COVID-19 vaccine programmes across the USA.

Walking the Tightrope: Reevaluating science communication in the era of COVID-19 vaccines

Scientists are trained to be skeptical and not overstate the existing evidence. This cautiousness is a valuable asset when working in scientific research, where the goal is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. It becomes a handicap when scientists are asked to communicate to the public about pressing topics such as COVID-19 vaccines. Often in such contexts, immediate recommendations are sought, and decisions must be made even when complete evidence is lacking. For scientists to be effective public communicators, they must adjust their mindset and embrace brevity, clarity, and other principles of effective communication. Focusing messages on what is known fosters public confidence in taking needed actions, whereas focusing on what is still unknown fosters inaction and seeds doubt. The implementation of principles of effective communication does not inherently conflict with maintaining scientific accuracy and acknowledging uncertainty, but it does require additional care, effort, and training.

Vaccinomics: a cross-sectional survey of public values

Objective: We characterize public values regarding vaccinomics, which aims to improve vaccine safety and effectiveness using genomics.Methods: Panel survey (2020) of ≥18-year-olds with embedded animation introduced vaccinomics. Sociodemographic, health, and vaccination-related items were adapted from validated scales. Novel items measured trust in public health authorities, vaccinomics-related values, and preferences for federal funding: vaccinomics compared with vaccine issues and chronic diseases. Beginning and end of survey confidence in vaccine safety was measured to assess potential changes. Data were weighted to the U.S. Census. Vaccinomics-related concerns were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine hesitancy status (composite outcome), reported serious vaccine reactions, and trust in public health authorities (PHA). Log binomial regression models estimated associations between these variables and agency to make vaccine-related decisions.Results: Most (70.7%, N = 1,925) respondents expected vaccinomics would increase their vaccine confidence compared to now. Agreement was highest among those without serious vaccine reaction experience (unexperienced: 74.2% versus experienced: 62.3%), with high trust in PHA (high: 83.3% versus low: 57.4%), and low vaccine hesitancy among parents of teenagers (low: 78.8% versus high: 62.5%) and adults without minor children (low: 79.8% versus high: 60.6%; all p < .01). Belief that vaccination was an individual's choice was associated with reported serious reactions (adjusted Prevalence Ratio (aPR): 1.16; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.25) and low trust (aPR: 0.91; 0.84, 0.98). Beginning versus end of survey vaccine safety perceptions were similar.Conclusion: Federal funding, communications, and policies should assure the public that vaccinomics will not remove their decision-making power and engender trust in PHA.

Healthcare Personnel (HCP) Attitudes About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination After Emergency Use Authorization

BACKGROUND

We previously reported on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intent among healthcare personnel (HCP) before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees between 21 February and 19 March 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent, and acceptance.

RESULTS

Overall, 3981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), whereas staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all > 80% vaccine acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.

Using the health belief model to identify barriers to seasonal influenza vaccination among Australian adults in 2019

BACKGROUND

Each year tens of thousands of Australians become ill with influenza, resulting in thousands of severe infections that require hospitalisation. However, only 40% of adults receive the annual influenza vaccine. We surveyed Australian adults to provide up to date, population-specific data on the predictors and barriers of seasonal influenza vaccination.

METHODS

We administered an online survey to a nationally representative sample of Australian adults. We designed survey questions using the theoretical constructs of the health belief model. Using simple and multivariable Poisson regression, we identified attitudes and beliefs associated with influenza vaccination in 2019.

RESULTS

Among 1,444 respondents, 51.7% self-reported influenza vaccination in 2019. We estimated vaccine coverage to be 44% for adults under 45, 46% for adults aged 45 to 64 and 77% for adults aged 65 and over. The strongest individual predictors of self-reported vaccination were believing the vaccine is effective at preventing influenza (APR = 3.71; 95% CI = 2.87-4.80), followed by recalling their doctor recommending the vaccine (APR = 2.70; 95% CI = 2.31-3.16). Common perceived barriers that predicted self-reported vaccination included believing the vaccine could give you influenza (APR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.52-0.67), believing the vaccine can make you ill afterwards (APR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.62-0.74) and preferring to develop immunity "naturally" (APR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.32-0.45).

CONCLUSION

Although vaccine uptake in 2019 appears to be higher than previous years, there are perceived barriers which may limit uptake among Australians. Tailored interventions are needed to combat widespread influenza vaccine hesitancy, particularly among high-risk groups.

School-level perceptions and enforcement of the elimination of nonmedical exemptions to vaccination in California

In 2015, California passed Senate Bill 277 eliminating all nonmedical exemptions to school vaccinations. We aimed to explore school-level modes of SB277 enforcement, characterize vaccination knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of school officials, and identify whether school vaccination policies are associated with medical exemptions being granted. Surveys were mailed to a stratified random sample of 1,450 schools in California. School personnel (n = 752) reported their medical training, vaccination beliefs, enforcement of vaccination policies, and school rates of medical exemptions. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess whether school policies are associated with the likelihood of medical exemption requests being granted. Nurses were more likely than non-nurses to hold beliefs recognizing the importance of vaccination. A school where the survey respondent was a nurse was more likely to have granted a medical exemption request compared to a school where the respondent was not a nurse (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.34-3.36). The training of school officials and school-level practices may impact the enforcement of medical exemptions. Equipping school officials as competent sources of vaccine information for concerned parents will be valuable in improving parental vaccine uptake.

Novel vaccine safety issues and areas that would benefit from further research

Vaccine licensure requires a very high safety standard and vaccines routinely used are very safe. Vaccine safety monitoring prelicensure and postlicensure enables continual assessment to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks and, when safety problems arise, they are quickly identified, characterised and further problems prevented when possible. We review five vaccine safety case studies: (1) dengue vaccine and enhanced dengue disease, (2) pandemic influenza vaccine and narcolepsy, (3) rotavirus vaccine and intussusception, (4) human papillomavirus vaccine and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome, and (5) RTS, S/adjuvant system 01 malaria vaccine and meningitis, cerebral malaria, female mortality and rebound severe malaria. These case studies were selected because they are recent and varied in the vaccine safety challenges they elucidate. Bringing these case studies together, we develop lessons learned that can be useful for addressing some of the potential safety issues that will inevitably arise with new vaccines.

Communicating With Vaccine-Hesitant Parents: A Narrative Review

Although vaccines are considered one of the most effective medical interventions to prevent vaccine preventable disease and associated morbidity and mortality, a number of recent outbreaks are threatening the gains made by vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is a key driver of vaccine refusal and has been associated with vaccine preventable outbreaks. While parents seek information from many sources to inform their vaccine decision-making process, they continue to view their child's pediatric provider as a trusted source of vaccine information. The communication that occurs between a provider and parent with regards to vaccination is critical in reducing concerns and nudging parents toward vaccine acceptance. However, vaccine-hesitant parents raise issues in this encounter that many providers feel ill-equipped to answer, due to lack of training on evidence-based communication strategies. We focus on promising approaches related to patient-provider communication within the context of vaccination. We found empirical evidence that the use of a presumptive format to recommend vaccines, motivational interviewing, and tailoring information to increase message salience are approaches that can positively affect vaccine acceptance. As providers continue to serve as important influencers in the vaccine decision-making process, it is evident that there is a need to continue to identify evidence-based, and practically implementable approaches to mitigate parental vaccine hesitancy. Providers play a key role in improving coverage rates, and therefore it is paramount to seek ways to improve how providers communicate about vaccines.

Pharmacy, workplace or primary care? Where Australian adults get their influenza vaccines

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of influenza vaccines administered in non-medical settings in Australia in 2019 and identify factors associated with vaccination site.

METHODS

We surveyed 1,444 Australian adults online in October 2019. To identify factors associated with vaccination site, we used Pearson's chi-square test. We used thematic analysis to describe responses to the question, 'Please explain why you chose to get vaccinated there'.

RESULTS

Most participants (73%) received the influenza vaccine in a medical setting, while 13% received it at a pharmacy and 14% at their workplace. Being vaccinated in pharmacy was associated with being under 65 years of age (p<0.01), marital status (p=0.01), and not having a high-risk comorbidity (p<0.01). Workplace vaccination was associated with being under 65 (p<0.01), household income (p<0.01), not having a regular general physician/practice (p=0.01), having private insurance (p<0.01), and not having a high-risk comorbidity (p<0.01). There was no association between site of vaccination and first-time vaccination (p=0.71, p=0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite new policies allowing pharmacists to administer influenza vaccines, most Australian adults are still vaccinated in medical settings. Pharmacy and workplace vaccination settings were more common among younger adults without high-risk comorbidities. Implications for public health: Workplaces, pharmacies and other non-medical settings may provide an opportunity to increase influenza vaccination among healthy, working-age adults who might otherwise forego annual vaccination. Pharmacies may also provide a convenient location for the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly in medically underserved areas.

Development of a Scale to Measure Trust in Public Health Authorities: Prevalence of Trust and Association with Vaccination

Infectious disease outbreaks highlight the importance of trust in public health authorities to avoid fear and improve adherence to recommendations. There is currently no established and validated measure for trust in public health authorities. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument that measures trust in public health authorities and to assess the association between trust in public health authorities and vaccine attitudes. We developed 20 items to measure trust in public health authorities. After implementing a survey in January 2020, we investigated relationships between the items, reduced the number of items, and identified latent constructs of the scale. We assessed variability in trust and how trust was associated with vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported vaccine acceptance. The pool was reduced to a 14-item trust in public health authorities scale and we found that this trust model was strongly associated with acceptance of vaccines. Our scale can be used to examine the relationship between trust in public health authorities and adherence to public health recommendations. The measure needs to be validated in other settings to determine whether they are associated with other areas where the public question public health authority recommendations.

COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, values and intentions among United States adults prior to emergency use authorization

Introduction

Safe and effective vaccines against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide the best opportunity to control the pandemic. Having safe and efficacious vaccines available is only half the equation; people must also take them. We describe a study to identify COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, values and intentions immediately preceding authorization of COVID-19 vaccines in the US.

Methods

A national panel survey was conducted to measure intent to receive COVID-19 vaccines as well as disease and vaccine attitudes, values and trust in local, state and federal public health authorities.

Results

Greater than 80% of respondents reported confidence they could adhere to COVID recommendations such as mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. The majority of respondents (70%) reported believing that current drugs were somewhat or very good at treating COVID-19 infection.

Vaccine intent fell into three groups: Intenders (50%), Wait and Learn (40%), and Unlikelys (10%). Intent to get vaccinated was substantially lower among African American (32%), and higher among men (56%), those over 60 years of age (61%), those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (63%), and Democrats (63%). The Wait and Learn group, compared to the Intenders, were less likely to report being diagnosed with a high risk condition for COVID-19, receiving an influenza vaccine in the past 12 months, discussing COVID-19 vaccine with their healthcare provider, perceiving COVID-19 as severe, considering a COVID-19 vaccine important to stop the spread of infection, and wering a mask usually or almost always.

Conclusion

Only half of US adults intend to accept COVID-19 vaccines; most others (40%) are uncertain. Levels of immunity associated with community protection will not be achieved without reaching those who are currently uncertain. Characterizing COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and intentions and ascertaining values and trust in local, state, and federal public health authorities that impact vaccine decision-making are essential.

Ethical and policy implications of vaccinomics in the United States: community members' perspectives

Objectives: We aimed to elucidate public values regarding the use of genomics to improve vaccine development and use (vaccinomics).

Methods: Adults ≥18 years-old were recruited through social media and community organizations, and randomly assigned to one of four nested discussion groups in Boulder, CO and Baltimore, MD. Participants rated their confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness prior to and after discussing vaccinomics. Before departing, they prioritized funding for vaccinomics versus federal priorities (vaccine safety and efficacy, new vaccines, and free vaccines) and chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Grounded Theory-influenced methods were used to identify themes.

Results: Participants broadly supported vaccinomics. Emergent themes: concerns about reduced privacy/confidentiality, increased genetically based stigma/discrimination, and reduced agency to make vaccine-related decisions through genetically based prioritization. Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization. Some participants favored prioritizing others over themselves during a vaccine shortage, while others did not. Some participants worried health insurance companies would discriminate against them based on information discovered through vaccinomics. Participants feared inequitable implementation of vaccinomics would contribute to discrimination and marginalization of vulnerable populations. Discussing vaccinomics did not impact perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Federal funding for vaccinomics was broadly supported.

Conclusion: Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization, noting policy safeguards to facilitate equitable implementation and protect privacy were needed. Despite some concerns, participants hoped vaccinomics would improve vaccine safety and effectiveness. Policies regarding vaccinomics’ implementation must address public concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of genetic information and potential inequities in access to vaccinomics’ benefits.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Maternal Vaccine Knowledge, Attitudes, and Intentions

OBJECTIVES

Although disparities in maternal vaccine acceptance among racial/ethnic groups are well documented, the reasons for these disparities are unclear. The objective of this study was to describe differences in pregnant women's knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and trust regarding maternal and infant vaccines by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

We collected survey data from 1862 pregnant women from diverse prenatal care practices in Georgia and Colorado from June 2017 through July 2018. We performed multiple logistic regressions to determine differences in intentions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and trust by race/ethnicity and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Compared with White women, Black and Hispanic women were less confident in vaccine safety and efficacy and less likely to perceive risk of acquiring vaccine-preventable diseases, report provaccine social norms, indicate having enough vaccine knowledge, and trust vaccine information from health care providers and public health authorities. Black women were the least confident in the safety of the maternal influenza vaccine (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49); maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.52); and infant vaccines overall (OR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.58), and were least likely to intend to receive both maternal vaccines (OR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.27-0.47) or all infant vaccines on time (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.61) as compared with White women.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding differences in behavioral constructs integral to vaccine decision making among women of different races/ethnicities can lead to tailored interventions to improve vaccine acceptance.