COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Personnel Who Generally Accept Vaccines

Sociodemographic and Occupational Characteristics Associated with Early and Continued COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Healthcare Personnel: Monroe County, NY

OBJECTIVE

Identify characteristics of healthcare personnel (HCP) who did not have timely initiation of the COVID-19 primary series, as well as HCP who did not receive a booster vaccine.

METHODS

Characteristics of HCP enrolled in a COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness study between 12/28/2020-12/01/2022 were compared by timing of receipt of 1st mRNA dose, and by receipt of a booster dose. Data for this retrospective cohort analysis came from HCP working at a large healthcare system in Monroe County, New York, and included standardized questionnaires and verified vaccination status. HCP were categorized by whether they received their 1stmRNA COVID-19 vaccine between 12/14/2020-03/30/2021 (earlier) or 04/01/2021-09/28/2021 (later) based on timing of local vaccine eligibility and mandates, and by whether they received a 3rdmRNA booster dose by 12/01/22. Logistic regression models were run to identify characteristics of HCP who had later 1stdose receipt or did not receive a booster.

RESULTS

3,375 HCP were enrolled. Of these, 86.8 % had early initiation of their 1stCOVID-19 vaccine, and 85.0 % received a booster dose. Low education, low household income, younger age (<50), non-White race and public health insurance were all significant predictors of later receipt of 1stdose and lack of uptake of a booster. However, advanced professional role was only found to be a significant predictor of early 1stdose receipt.

CONCLUSIONS

Continual monitoring of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among HCP to identify those less likely to receive new booster doses will be crucial to support targeted vaccine campaigns in this important population.

The COVID-19 inflammation and high mortality mechanism trigger

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lasted from March 2020 to May 2023, infecting over 689 million and causing 6.9 million deaths globally. SARS-CoV-2 enters human cells via the spike protein binding to ACE2 receptors, leading to viral replication and an exaggerated immune response characterized by a "cytokine storm." This review analyzes the COVID-19 pathogenesis, strains, risk factors for severe disease, and vaccine types and effectiveness. A systematic literature search for 2020-2023 was conducted. Results show the cytokine storm underlies COVID-19 pathogenesis, causing multiorgan damage. Key viral strains include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron, differing in transmissibility, disease severity, and vaccine escape. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 include older age, obesity, and comorbidities. mRNA, viral vector, and inactivated vaccines effectively prevent hospitalization and death, although new variants exhibit some vaccine escape. Ongoing monitoring of emerging strains and vaccine effectiveness is warranted. This review provides updated information on COVID-19 pathogenesis, viral variants, risk factors, and vaccines to inform public health strategies for containment and treatment.

Online on the frontline: A longitudinal social media analysis of UK healthcare workers' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines using the 5C framework

This paper explores vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the UK, where different COVID-19 vaccines were being rolled out through a national vaccination campaign from 2020 to 2022, consisting of a first and second dose programme. Through a mixed-method approach using qualitative discourse analysis and network analysis of Twitter data, we assessed HCW perceptions and views about the administration and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom (UK). We were also interested in exploring HCWs' personal experiences and attitudes towards taking COVID-19 vaccines themselves. We drew upon sociology, ethics, communication studies and used research methods concentrating on social media and media analysis. By employing the '5C framework' of 'confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility' we evaluated a longitudinal selection of tweets to capture relevant factors driving vaccination views and behaviours among HCWs. We found differing positions expressed about COVID-19 vaccines and policy during the first dose compared with the second, through a drop in confidence compounded by supply and access issues, as well the news of a vaccine mandate for HCWs by the UK government in 2021. HCWs asked calculation questions to the community or brought forward competing pieces of information about vaccine policy and guidelines. Constraint levels in access issues were noted, especially for those with work and caregiving responsibilities, and student nurses found they did not have equal vaccination access. HCWs also displayed collective responsibility on social platforms to both encourage vaccination and express concerns through the organisation of social action against vaccine mandates.

Attitudes towards COVID Vaccine and Vaccine Hesitancy in Dermatology: A Narrative Review

Vaccine hesitancy has been a contentious issue even before the pandemic. The COVID-19 crisis has further amplified vaccine hesitancy, with worries about adverse effects, cultural and religious beliefs, and misinformation on social media. In dermatology, patients with pre-existing skin conditions may have specific concerns about the impact of the vaccine on their skin health. Factors such as cutaneous reactions, potential flares of underlying conditions, and fears of psoriasis worsening post-vaccination contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals, including dermatologists, play a crucial role in addressing vaccine hesitancy by providing accurate information, addressing concerns, and understanding the psychological impact on patients. The concept of vaccine fatigue is also explored, noting the challenges in sustaining vaccine acceptance over time, especially with regards to booster vaccinations. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy requires trust-building, effective communication strategies, and collaboration between healthcare workers and non-healthcare individuals to combat misinformation. By recognizing and addressing psychological factors, dermatologists can increase vaccine acceptance and improve public health efforts.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability among Healthcare Workers in Kenya-A Mixed Methods Analysis

Healthcare workers (HCWs) were a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. Adopting the World Health Organization's 3C and the expanded 5C vaccine hesitancy models, we assessed the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among HCWs in Kenya. In a mixed methods study, respondents were from eight selected counties across the country. An online survey (n = 746), key informant interviews (n = 18) and focus group discussions (n = 3) were conducted. The data were analyzed concurrently. Quantitative data showed that all the 3C antecedents were strong predictors of vaccine acceptability. The association of vaccine acceptability was strongest with convenience (aOR 20.13, 95% CI 9.01-44.96), then complacency (aOR 10.15, 95% CI 4.63-22.21) and confidence (aOR 6.37, 95% CI 2.90-14.02). Marital status was a significant independent factor associated with vaccine acceptability (aOR 2.70, 95% CI 1.20-6.08). Qualitatively, convenience presented as the no-cost availability of vaccines at the health facilities, whereas non-complacency manifested from the first-hand observed experience of COVID cases, and the need to protect oneself and family members. Confidence was mainly attributed to increased knowledge, resulting from multiple training sessions and trust in regulatory authorities. Other social factors including workplace pressure, religion and misinformation had a role in influencing HCW vaccination decisions. In the background of a pandemic, the 3C model is a strong predictor of vaccine acceptability, and making the vaccines easily available and convenient to HCWs significantly impacts their uptake.

Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate on the primary care workforce and differences between rural and urban settings to inform future policy decision-making

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the impact of mandated vaccination policies on the primary care clinic workforce in the United States or differences between rural and urban settings, especially for COVID-19. With the continued pandemic and an anticipated increase in novel disease outbreaks and emerging vaccines, healthcare systems need additional information on how vaccine mandates impact the healthcare workforce to aid in future decision-making.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Oregon primary care clinic staff between October 28, 2021- November 18, 2021, following implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for healthcare personnel. The survey consisted of 19 questions that assessed the clinic-level impacts of the vaccination mandate. Outcomes included job loss among staff, receipt of an approved vaccination waiver, new vaccination among staff, and the perceived significance of the policy on clinic staffing. We used univariable descriptive statistics to compare outcomes between rural and urban clinics. The survey also included three open-ended questions that were analyzed using a template analysis approach.

RESULTS

Staff from 80 clinics across 28 counties completed surveys, representing 38 rural and 42 urban clinics. Clinics reported job loss (46%), use of vaccination waivers (51%), and newly vaccinated staff (60%). Significantly more rural clinics (compared to urban) utilized medical and/or religious vaccination waivers (71% vs 33%, p = 0.04) and reported significant impact on clinic staffing (45% vs 21%, p = 0.048). There was also a non-significant trend toward more job loss for rural compared to urban clinics (53% vs. 41%, p = 0.547). Qualitative analysis highlighted a decline in clinic morale, small but meaningful detriments to patient care, and mixed opinions of the vaccination mandate.

CONCLUSIONS

Oregon's COVID-19 vaccination mandate increased healthcare personnel vaccination rates, yet amplified staffing challenges with disproportionate impacts in rural areas. Staffing impacts in primary care clinics were greater than reported previously in hospital settings and with other vaccination mandates. Mitigating primary care staffing impacts, particularly in rural areas, will be critical in response to the continued pandemic and novel viruses in the future.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers and the effect of nudging interventions: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has a critical role because of their high-risk exposure and being a role model. Therefore, we aimed to investigate vaccine hesitancy and the role of mandatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and education for vaccine uptake.

METHODS

We conducted an explanatory sequential designed observational mixed-methods study, including quantitative and qualitative sections consecutively in two different pandemic hospitals between 15 September 2021 and 1 April 2022. The characteristics of vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs were compared. The vaccine hesitancy scales were applied, and the effect of nudging, such as mandatory PCR and education, were evaluated. In-depth interviews were performed to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs according to Health Belief Model.

RESULTS

In total, 3940 HCWs were included. Vaccine hesitancy was more common among males than females, the ancillary workers than other health professions, and nonmedical departments than other departments. After the mandatory weekly PCR request nudge, 83.33 % (130/156) vaccine-hesitant HCWs were vaccinated, and 8.3 % (13/156) after the small group seminars and mandatory PCR every two days. The rate of COVID-19 vaccination was raised from 95.5 % to 99.67  % (3927/3940). At the end of in-depth interviews (n = 13), the vaccine hesitancy determinants were distrust, fear of uncertainty, immune confidence and spirituality, the media effect, social pressure, and obstinacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The nudging interventions such as mandatory PCR testing and small group seminars helped raise the rate of COVID-19 vaccination; the most effective one is mandatory PCR.

COVID-19 Booster Doses: A Multi-Center Study Reflecting Healthcare Providers' Perceptions

(1) Background: During 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic was threatening healthcare services and workers, and acquiring immunity was an option to stop or limit the burden of this pandemic. Herd immunity was a top priority worldwide as the virus was spreading rapidly. It was estimated that 67% of the total global population should be immunized against COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. The aim of the current study is to investigate different perceptions of healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt using an online survey in an attempt to evaluate their awareness and concerns regarding new variants and booster doses. (2) Methods: This study conducted a survey on healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt about their perception and concerns on the COVID-19 vaccines. (3) Results: The study found that out of 389 healthcare workers 46.1% of the physicians were not willing to take the booster doses (p = 0.004). Physicians also did not support taking the COVID-19 vaccine as an annual vaccine (p = 0.04). Furthermore, to assess the association between the type of vaccine taken with the willingness of taking a booster vaccine, healthcare workers beliefs on vaccine effectiveness (p = 0.001), suspension or contact with patients (p = 0.000), and infection after COVID-19 vaccination (p = 0.016) were significant. (4) Conclusion: Knowledge about vaccine accreditation and regulation should be dispersed more widely to ensure that the population has a positive perception on vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Previous Vaccination History and Psychological Factors as Significant Predictors of Willingness to Receive Mpox Vaccination and a Favorable Attitude towards Compulsory Vaccination

During the ongoing multi-country monkeypox (Mpox) outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have represented a key group in mitigating disease spread. The current study aimed to evaluate the attitude of nurses and physicians in Jordan towards Mpox vaccination, as well as their attitude towards compulsory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), influenza, and Mpox. An online survey was distributed in January 2023 based on the previously validated 5C scale for psychological determinants of vaccination. Previous vaccination behavior was assessed by inquiring about the history of getting the primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination, influenza vaccine uptake during COVID-19, and any history of influenza vaccine uptake. The study sample consisted of 495 respondents: nurses (n = 302, 61.0%) and physicians (n = 193, 39.0%). Four hundred and thirty respondents (86.9%) had heard of Mpox before the study, and formed the final sample considered for Mpox knowledge analysis. Deficiencies in Mpox knowledge were reflected in a mean knowledge score of 13.3 ± 2.7 (out of 20.0 as the maximum score), with significantly lower knowledge among nurses and females. The intention to receive Mpox vaccination was reported by 28.9% of the participants (n = 143), while 33.3% were hesitant (n = 165), and 37.8% were resistant (n = 187). In multivariate analysis, Mpox vaccine acceptance was significantly associated with previous vaccination behavior, reflected in higher vaccine uptake and with higher 5C scores, while Mpox knowledge was not correlated with Mpox vaccination intention. The overall attitude towards compulsory vaccination was neutral, while a favorable attitude towards compulsory vaccination was associated with higher 5C scores and a history of previous vaccination uptake. The current study showed a low intention to get Mpox vaccination in a sample of nurses and physicians practicing in Jordan. The psychological factors and previous vaccination behavior appeared as the most significant determinants of Mpox vaccine acceptance and of attitudes towards compulsory vaccination. The consideration of these factors is central to policies and strategies aiming to promote vaccination among health professionals in efforts to prepare for future infectious disease epidemics.

Expert review of global real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine booster effectiveness and safety during the omicron-dominant phase of the pandemic

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. However, the emergence of the Omicron variant and subvariants as the globally dominant strains have raised doubts about the effectiveness of currently available vaccines and prompted debate about potential future vaccination strategies.

AREAS COVERED

Using the publicly available IVAC VIEW-hub platform, we reviewed 52 studies on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after booster vaccinations. VE were reported for SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection, severe disease and death and stratified by vaccine schedule and age. In addition, a non-systematic literature review of safety was performed to identify single or multi-country studies investigating adverse event rates for at least two of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.

EXPERT OPINION

Booster shots of the current COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high protection against Omicron-related severe disease and death. Additionally, this protection appears to be conserved for at least 3 months, with a small but significant waning after that. The positive risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is well established, giving us confidence to administer additional doses as required. Future vaccination strategies will likely include a combination of schedules based on risk profile, as overly frequent boosting may be neither beneficial nor sustainable for the general population.

Models of determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-pregnant and pregnant population: Review of current literature"

Vaccination has proven to be the most effective tool in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. While pregnant individuals are considered to be a high-risk population and are more likely to experience adverse effects from COVID-19, vaccination rates among pregnant individuals are significantly lower than in the general population. The Health Belief Model (HBM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), 3C model, 5C model, and 5A model have been used to assess vaccination hesitancy behaviors. In this paper, we review the use of each of these models to address vaccine hesitancy, with a focus on the pregnant population and the COVID-19 vaccine. The HBM, TPB, 3C model, and 5C model have demonstrated great versatility in their ability to evaluate, explain, and modify vaccine hesitancy and behavior. Up to date, the HBM and 3C models appear to be the most effective models to study and address vaccination hesitancy within the pregnant persons.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and short-term and long-term intentions among unvaccinated young adults: a mixed-method approach

BACKGROUND

Only 63.8% of Americans who are 18-to-24-years-old have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 as of June 1, 2022. The Grand Forks County, North Dakota is facing a similar challenge. As of June 2022, 47% of individuals in the 19-to-29-year-old age group are vaccinated. Focusing on unvaccinated individuals in their 20s, Study 1 aims to understand the ways in which receiving COVID-19 vaccines is construed using qualitative interviews; and Study 2 compares the predictors of short-term vaccination intention (i.e., next month) with those of long-term vaccination intention (i.e., three to 5 years) using an online survey.

METHODS

For Study 1, we conducted five focus groups and four in-depth interviews via Zoom with a total of 26 unvaccinated individuals in their 20s living in the Grand Forks County. Constant comparison process was used to categorize data into themes and to recognize characteristics of the identified themes. The aim was to develop themes and associated characteristics. For Study 2, we conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of 526 unvaccinated individuals. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in misinformation and short-term and long-term vaccination intentions, accounting for demographics and socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

In Study 1, two themes were identified: feelings of uncertainty sparked by profits and monetization and navigating the fear of the unknown. In Study 2, an increase in the confidence of COVID-19 vaccines showed significantly higher odds of short-term intention (OR = 2.658, 95%CI 1.770, 3.990) and long-term intention (OR = 1.568, 95% CI 1.105, 2.226). Believing in misinformation had significantly lower odds of short-term intention (OR = 0.712, 95%CI 0.513, 0.990), while more positive attitudes (OR = 1.439, 95% CI 1.024, 2.024), stronger preference in calculating the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 2.108, 95% CI 1.541, 2.882), and greater perceived susceptibility (OR = 1.471, 95% CI 1.045, 2.070) to and severity of contracting COVID-19 (OR = 1.362, 95% CI 1.020, 1.820) were significantly associated with higher odds of long-term intention.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term and long-term intentions were predicted differently. Instilling strong confidence in COVID-19 vaccines should increase both short-term and long-term intentions.

Standing alone: experiences of vaccine-hesitant Danish healthcare professionals during COVID-19

AIM

The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of Danish healthcare professionals who were hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted over the telephone in January and February 2021.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals experienced the need to avoid impossible conversations about vaccine hesitancy with their colleagues. They felt a lack of knowledge of long-term experience with the vaccine and a need to balance trust in themselves and the authorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals who were hesitant towards the COVID-19 vaccine felt they had to keep their concerns to themselves and felt isolated and pressured by their managers. This study is especially important for managers, who must ensure a trusting working environment in which employees can discuss their concerns without feeling pressured.

Did Italy Really Need Compulsory Vaccination against COVID-19 for Healthcare Workers? Results of a Survey in a Centre for Maternal and Child Health

Since its early spread, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a health threat globally. Due to their crucial role in the pandemic, Italy declared compulsory vaccination for healthcare workers. Vaccine hesitancy was observed among the healthcare workers and an ethical debate arose about Italian legal statement D.L. n. 44/2021. In this article, we present the results of a survey performed in an Italian center for maternal and infant care and assess the attitudes towards the COVID-19 pandemic and the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers. Since March 2022, 91.5% of healthcare workers have been vaccinated with an additional dose. Only 2.3% of the respondents refused to take vaccination: the reasons behind this refusal were distrust, doubts over safety, and lack of information. Despite the high rate of response to vaccination, 17.7% of HCWs did not agree with its mandatory nature. In addition, 5.4% stated that they agreed to be vaccinated exclusively because of the sanctions provided for by the legislation. In conclusion, adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved in the hospital under consideration. However, it is still very important to continue to persuade HCWs of vaccine efficacy and safety, considering their social role.

Higher Collective Responsibility, Higher COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake, and Interaction with Vaccine Attitude: Results from Propensity Score Matching

Providing both personal and social benefits, vaccination may be motivated by collective responsibility (CR). Some previous studies have indicated the relationship between CR and vaccination but could not exclude confounding bias and had little knowledge about the boundary conditions. This study aimed to examine the association between CR and COVID-19 vaccine uptake and its boundary conditions in an extended version of the theory of planned behavior. A cross-sectional survey with 608 participants from six tourism satellite industries in Macao was conducted from 28 July 2021 to 20 August of 2021. Respondentss in CR-lower and CR-higher groups were 1:1 paired using propensity score matching (PSM) to control the potential confounding factors. Results showed participants in the CR-higher group reported significantly higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake than those in the CR-lower group (64.7% vs. 49.7%, p = 0.005). Multivariate logistic regression results indicated a positive association between CR and COVID-19 vaccine uptake (p = 0.012, OR = 2.070, 95% CI= 1.174 to 3.650) and its interaction effect with COVID-19 vaccine attitude (p = 0.019, OR = 0.922, 95% CI = 0.861 to 0.987). Spotlight analysis further illustrated that CR was more effective among individuals with a more negative COVID-19 vaccine attitude. These findings may help promote understanding of vaccine hesitancy, and hence optimize vaccination communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers-A Review

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated vaccine have highlighted vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy among this group existed prior to the pandemic and particularly centered around influenza vaccination. Being a physician, having more advanced education, and previous vaccination habits are frequently associated with vaccine acceptance. The relationship between age and caring for patients on COVID-19 vaccination is unclear, with studies providing opposing results. Reasons for hesitancy include concerns about safety and efficacy, mistrust of government and institutions, waiting for more data, and feeling that personal rights are being infringed upon. Many of these reasons reflect previous attitudes about influenza vaccination as well as political beliefs and views of personal autonomy. Finally, several interventions to encourage vaccination have been studied, including education programs and non-monetary incentives with the most effective studies using a combination of methods.