Impact of Vaccine Hesitancy on Onset, Severity and Type of Self-reported Adverse Events: A French Cross-Sectional Survey

Does health anxiety and vaccine concern predict self-reported adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination?-A Danish national cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The nocebo effect refers to an expectation of sickness that leads to sickness in the expectant. Studies have found COVID-19 vaccines to be associated with the nocebo effect. However, the literature in this field is sparse yet important with the continuation of booster vaccines.

STUDY DESIGN

National cohort study.

METHODS

This study used data from the Danish national cohort "BiCoVac", which contains self-reported information on both health anxiety and specific COVID-19 vaccine concern, as well as 19 systemic AEs following COVID-19 vaccination. Simple and multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the association between health anxiety and specific COVID-19 vaccine concern with having one or more systemic AEs following COVID-19 vaccination. Inverse probability weights were used to compensate for the initial dropout and loss to follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 85,080 participants in the study, 4 % reported health anxiety, 30 % reported specific COVID-19 vaccine concern, and 26 % one or more systemic AEs following vaccination. After adjusting for covariates, participants with health anxiety had higher odds of reporting one or more systemic AEs following vaccination compared to those without (OR, 1·21 CI 95 % [1·10; 1·33]). For specific COVID-19 vaccine concern, the OR was 1·51 CI 95 % [1·45; 1·58].

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with specific COVID-19 vaccine concern had higher odds of reporting one or more systemic AEs following vaccination compared with those who had no specific COVID-19 vaccine concern. There might be a potential to reduce AEs, with positive framing of AEs and information about nocebo. Reporting of AEs was also associated with health anxiety, but to a lesser degree.

Assessing the benefit-risk balance of drugs. Some lessons from the COVID pandemic

INTRODUCTION

Drug efficacy and effectiveness are assessed respectively through clinical trials and pharmaco-epidemiological studies. However, relative and absolute benefits of drugs are distinct measures that must be considered in relation to the baseline risk of disease incidence, complication or progression. On the other hand, adverse drug reactions are independent of the basic risk but depend on the characteristics of the population treated. Given these prerequisites, how can we balance the benefits and risks of drugs?

AREAS COVERED

We use the example of therapeutics evaluated during Covid to describe how assessing the benefit-risk balance of drugs is a complex process.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical trials are not designed to identify rare adverse events, underscoring the necessity for a pharmacovigilance system. Evaluating the balance between the benefits and risks of drugs is an ongoing process, demanding the simultaneous analysis of data from clinical trials, potential drug-drug interactions, pharmacovigilance monitoring and pharmaco-epidemiological studies, to identify potential safety concerns. In addition, pharmacologists must play a major role in educating the general public about drugs, aiding in the accurate interpretation of the benefit-risk balance and preventing misinformation.

Vaccine conspiracy association with higher COVID-19 vaccination side effects and negative attitude towards booster COVID-19, influenza and monkeypox vaccines: A pilot study in Saudi Universities

Conspiracies regarding vaccines are widely prevalent, with negative consequences on health-seeking behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the possible association between the embrace of vaccine conspiracies and the attitude to booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and monkeypox (mpox) vaccinations as well as the perceived side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The target population involved academic staff and university students in health colleges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in January 2023 to collect data on participants' demographics, self-reported side effects following each dose, willingness to get booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and mpox vaccinations, as well as an evaluation of vaccine conspiracies and attitude to mandatory vaccination. Among the 273 participants, the willingness to receive yearly booster COVID-19 vaccination was observed among 26.0% of the participants, while it was 46.9% and 34.1% for seasonal influenza and mpox vaccinations, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression analyses demonstrated a significant correlation between endorsing vaccine conspiracies and higher frequency of self-reported side effects following uptake of the second and third doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine conspiracies were also correlated with attitude toward booster COVID-19, influenza, mpox, and mandatory vaccination. The findings of this pilot study highlighted the potential adverse impact of the preexisting notions and negative attitudes toward vaccines, which could have contributed to heightened perceived side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The study also highlighted the ongoing divisions concerning mandatory vaccination policies, emphasizing the need for cautious implementation of this strategy as a last resort for public health benefit.

Unraveling the association between vaccine attitude, vaccine conspiracies and self-reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination among nurses and physicians in Jordan

Background

The negative impact of vaccine conspiracies is linked with negative health behavior. The aim of the current study was to examine the association between attitudes toward booster COVID-19, influenza, and monkeypox (mpox) vaccinations with post-COVID-19 vaccine side effects, vaccine conspiracies, and attitude towards mandatory vaccination among nurses and physicians in Jordan.

Methods

A structured closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect data on demographics, COVID-19 history, COVID-19 vaccine type and doses received, self-reported side effects post-COVID-19 vaccination, acceptance of booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and mpox vaccinations, attitudes towards mandatory vaccination, and beliefs in vaccine conspiracies.

Results

The study sample comprised a total of 341 participants. Acceptance of yearly booster COVID-19 vaccination was expressed by 46.6% of the sample, while 73.3% accepted seasonal influenza vaccination, and only 37.0% accepted mpox vaccination. A higher frequency of self-reported side effects following the first COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with embrace of vaccine conspiracies and vaccine type. For the second vaccine dose, a higher frequency of self-reported side effects was associated with the embrace of vaccine conspiracies, older age, and affiliation to private sector. In multinomial logistic regression analyses, the lower embrace of vaccine conspiracies was associated with lower odds of reporting side effects post-COVID-19 vaccination. The lower embrace of vaccine conspiracies and favorable attitude towards mandatory vaccination were associated with the willingness to get COVID-19, influenza, and mpox vaccinations.

Conclusion

The study findings highlighted the negative impact of embracing vaccine conspiracies on health-seeking behavior among nurses and physicians. The findings indicated that the willingness to get vaccinated was associated with lower endorsement of vaccine conspiracies. Additionally, the lower embrace of vaccine conspiracies was associated with a lower frequency of self-reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. These results emphasize the importance of addressing vaccine misinformation and promoting accurate information to ensure optimal vaccine uptake and public health outcomes.

Exploring the feelings of being at risk of vaccine related adverse effects: A cross-sectional survey in France

OBJECTIVES

The literature on vaccine hesitancy has widely commented on the various factors leading some to feel particularly at risk of disease infection while others do not. But little attention has been paid to whether we also see such differences regarding people's assessment of their personal vulnerability towards vaccine adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

We designed two cross-sectional online surveys among representative samples of the French mainland population (n = 2015 and 3087). We asked participants if they felt, more than others, at risk of severe vaccine related side effects and to explain why. We performed two separate mixed effect binomial regressions models: 1) to explore the link between the feeling of being particularly at risk of severe vaccine related AEs and socio-demographic characteristics, source of information, trust in health agencies and partisan orientation; 2) to explore the link between the fear of side effects and vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

We found that 15% of respondents felt to be, more than others, at risk of severe vaccine-related adverse events and that this feeling was associated to negative attitudes to vaccines. This feeling was particularly prevalent among women, those with a lower income, lower educational attainment and lower trust in public health institutions. The vast majority of the reasons given by responders are unrelated to genuine risk factors of vaccine related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that vaccine hesitancy is at least partly grounded in a feeling of vulnerability towards vaccine adverse events.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: Cross-sectional survey data from four European countries

Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.