Hesitant adopters: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among diverse vaccinated adults in the United States

Using cluster analysis to explore COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy by levels of medical mistrust in fully vaccinated US adults

BACKGROUND

Underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy could significantly affect successful uptake of the SARS-CoV2 vaccine booster doses during new waves of COVID-19. Booster rates among US adults are far below what is needed for immunity, but little is known about booster hesitancy among fully vaccinated adults and whether medical mistrust exacerbates barriers to uptake.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was completed among 119 adults in Philadelphia, PA who reported having received the primary SARS-CoV2 vaccine series but not a booster dose. Using the LaVeist Medical Mistrust (MM) Index, a k-means cluster analysis showed two clusters (Low MM, High MM) and differences in attitudes and perceptions about COVID-19 booster vaccines were assessed using F-tests.

RESULTS

Respondents were 62% Black and female; mean age was 41; 46% reported earning less than $25,000 and 53% had a high school education or less. Overall intention to get boosted was low (mean 3.3 on 0-10 scale). Differences in COVID-19 booster perceptions between those with High (n = 56) vs. Low (n = 59) MM were found, independent of any demographic differences. Most statements (7/10) related to reasons to not be boosted were significant, with those with High MM indicating more concern about feeling sick from the vaccine (F=-3.91, p≤ .001), beliefs that boosters are ineffective for vaccinated people (F= -3.46, p≤ .001), and long-term side effect worries (F=-4.34, p≤ .001). Those with High MM were also more concerned about the adverse effects of the vaccine (F=-2.48, p=.02), but were more likely to trust getting information from doctors or healthcare providers (F= -2.25, p=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that medical mistrust is an important independent construct when understanding current COVID-19 booster hesitancy. While much work has looked at demographic differences to explain vaccine hesitancy, these results suggest that further research into understanding and addressing medical mistrust could be important for implementing interventions to increase booster rates.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccination Among Organ Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in organ transplant recipients (OTRs) is critical given clear-albeit attenuated-benefits from vaccination.

METHODS

Adult OTRs were surveyed regarding sociodemographic data, medical history, and vaccine-related values. A novel outcome variable called the Vaccine Acceptance Composite Score (VACS) was built as the average Likert score of seven domains of vaccine confidence. To examine its association with several factors and individual adherence to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, univariable odds ratios and relative operating characteristic areas under the curve (AUC) values were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 46 OTRs included, 32.6% identified as female, 13.3% as Black, and 6.77% as Hispanic or Latino/a/x. The median age was 58 years old. 93.5% of patients were kidney transplant recipients, and 63.0% previously had COVID-19. Patients were most concerned about COVID-19 vaccine-associated risks (46.3%), its potential effect on allograft (47.6%), and motives of government officials involved with vaccine policy (55.6%). Politically conservative patients were likelier to have lower VACS, whereas those who lived with someone ≥65 years old were likelier to have higher VACS. The VACS was not significantly associated with race, income, religious beliefs, comorbidities, COVID-19 history, or influenza vaccination status. Higher VACS was associated with ≥3 and ≥4 COVID-19 immunizations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted political beliefs and elderly household members as correlates of vaccine acceptance among OTRs. The VACS may be a useful tool to help standardize multifaceted analyses in vaccination-focused behavioral research. In clinical practice, it could help identify individuals and groups at risk for vaccine hesitancy, who may benefit from tailored outreach and educational interventions.

An ecological comparison to inspect the aftermath of post COVID-19 condition in Italy and the United States

Post COVID-19 Condition (PCC) is a clinical syndrome following COVID-19 disease. PCC symptoms in adults entail significant productivity loss and reduced quality of life. This study aimed at estimating the epidemiological and economic burden of PCC among the working-age population of Italy and the US. This ecological analysis was conducted on data from January 2020 to April 2023, regarding population aged 18-64. PCC incidence for the US was retrieved from publicly reported estimates, while for Italy it was estimated from COVID-19 cases. Prevalence of factors associated with PCC and parameters to calculate temporary productivity losses (TPL) were retrieved. An estimated incidence rate ratio (eIRR) of PCC incidence in Italy and the US was calculated. TPL for reduced earnings and total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost were also estimated. The ecological eIRR Italy/US was 0.842 [95%CI 0.672-1.015], suggesting that, holding COVID-19 cases constant, 15.8% fewer PCC cases have occurred in Italy compared to the US. Overall PCC cases were found to be 12.0 [95%CI 9.9-14.1] million in the US, with 1.9 [95%CI 1.6-2.3] million QALYs lost, and 2.4 [95%CI 1.8-3.0] million in Italy, with 0.4 [95%CI 0.3-0.5] million QALYs lost. Up to April 2023, the TPL was estimated to be Int$7.5 [95%CI 5.8-10.1] billion in Italy and $41.5 [95%CI 34.3-48.7] billion in the US. PCC has had a significant epidemiological and economic impact on the working-age population. The findings from this study may be of use for health planning and policy regarding PCC in working-age adults.

Hesitant but vaccinated: Lessons learned from hesitant adopters

INTRODUCTION

The WHO SAGE vaccine hesitancy working group defined vaccine hesitancy as the delay or refusal of vaccination. Questions about individuals who become vaccinated while hesitant, or remain unvaccinated even though they are not hesitant, are unimaginable when starting from this behaviorally related definition of vaccine hesitancy. More critically, behaviorally related definitions limit the possibilities for vaccine hesitancy research to be translatable into clinical and public health practices that can increase vaccination.

LESSONS LEARNED

Emerging research on hesitant adopters provides several lessons for the conceptualization of vaccine hesitancy and how practitioners might increase vaccination. Conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy must account for some of the big lessons we have learned from hesitant adopters: (1) vaccine hesitancy and vaccination co-occur for many; (2) vaccine hesitancy may not always be characterized by a punctuated point-in-time or moment; and (3) following from the second lesson, vaccine hesitancy may not be temporally bound to the moments preceding a vaccination decision.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend conceptualizing vaccine-hesitant attitudes as distinctive from behaviors, and not temporally bound to moments preceding vaccination decisions. Sharpening the use of vaccine hesitancy and its temporal characteristics could benefit from engagement with the Life Course Paradigm. We recommend healthcare professionals provide a recommendation even when individuals express hesitancy. Finally, we recommend public health officials consider ways to improve the frequency and consistency of provider recommendations even among patients who are hesitant.

Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness (SMI) and people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe outcomes. We compare a tailored versus general best practice COVID-19 prevention program in group homes (GHs) for people with SMI or ID/DD in Massachusetts (MA).

METHODS

A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized control trial compared a four-component implementation strategy (Tailored Best Practices: TBP) to dissemination of standard prevention guidelines (General Best-Practices: GBP) in GHs across six MA behavioral health agencies. GBP consisted of standard best practices for preventing COVID-19. TBP included GBP plus four components including: (1) trusted-messenger peer testimonials on benefits of vaccination; (2) motivational interviewing; (3) interactive education on preventive practices; and (4) fidelity feedback dashboards for GHs. Primary implementation outcomes were full COVID-19 vaccination rates (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021) and fidelity scores (baseline: 5/1/21-7/30/21), at 3-month intervals to 15-month follow-up until October 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was COVID-19 infection (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021), measured every 3 months to 15-month follow-up. Cumulative incidence of vaccinations were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox frailty models evaluate differences in vaccination uptake and secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models (LMMs) and Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to evaluate differences in fidelity scores and incidence of COVID-19 infections.

RESULTS

GHs (n=415) were randomized to TBP (n=208) and GBP (n=207) including 3,836 residents (1,041 ID/DD; 2,795 SMI) and 5,538 staff. No differences were found in fidelity scores or COVID-19 incidence rates between TBP and GBP, however TBP had greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. No overall differences in vaccination rates were found between TBP and GBP. However, among unvaccinated group home residents with mental disabilities, non-White residents achieved full vaccination status at double the rate for TBP (28.6%) compared to GBP (14.4%) at 15 months. Additionally, the impact of TBP on vaccine uptake was over two-times greater for non-White residents compared to non-Hispanic White residents (ratio of HR for TBP between non-White and non-Hispanic White: 2.28, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies are beneficial as a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy with the potential to reduce disparities in vaccine acceptance among the subgroup of non-White individuals with mental disabilities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04726371, 27/01/2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04726371 .

Moral characteristics predicting COVID-19 vaccination

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to assess, for the first time, whether vaccination is predicted by different behavioral and cognitive aspects of moral decision-making.

BACKGROUND

Studies linking moral factors to vaccination have largely examined whether vaccination decisions can be explained by individual differences in the endorsement of various principles and norms central to deontology-based arguments in vaccination ethics. However, these studies have overlooked whether individuals prioritize norms over other considerations when making decisions, such as maximizing consequences (utilitarianism).

METHOD

In a sample of 1492 participants, the current study assessed whether vaccination is explained by individual differences in three aspects of moral decision-making (consequence sensitivity, norm sensitivity, and action tendency), while also considering ethics position (idealism, relativism) and moral identity.

RESULTS

Supportive vaccination (vaccine uptake accompanied by a positive attitude toward vaccines) was associated with utilitarianism (increased consequence sensitivity) and increased tolerance to risks and harm toward others. Meanwhile, although those in the non-vaccinated group was associated with higher harm sensitivities, they neither supported nor received the COVID vaccines (when vaccines prevent harm from infection).

CONCLUSION

Pro-vaccination messages may be made more effective by addressing perceptions of harms associated with vaccines and infections, respectively.

Sociodemographic factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in the South Asian community in Canada

OBJECTIVE

South Asians represent the largest non-white ethnic group in Canada and were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to determine the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in South Asian Canadians.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of vaccine hesitancy using data collected at the baseline assessment of a prospective cohort study, COVID CommUNITY South Asian. Participants (18 + years) were recruited from the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area in Ontario (ON) and the Greater Vancouver Area in British Columbia (BC) between April and November 2021. Demographic characteristics and vaccine attitudes measured by the Vaccine Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale were collected. Each item is scored on a 6-point Likert scale, and higher scores reflect greater hesitancy. A multivariable linear mixed effects model was used to identify sociodemographic factors associated with vaccine hesitancy, adjusting for multiple covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 1496 self-identified South Asians (52% female) were analyzed (mean age = 38.5 years; standard deviation (SD): 15.3). The mean VAX score was 3.2, SD: 0.8 [range: 1.0‒6.0]. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy included: time since immigration (p = 0.04), previous COVID-19 infection (p < 0.001), marital status (p < 0.001), living in a multigenerational household (p = 0.03), age (p = 0.02), education (p < 0.001), and employment status (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among South Asians living in ON and BC, time since immigration, prior COVID-19 infection, marital status, living in a multigenerational household, age, education, and employment status were associated with vaccine hesitancy. This information can be used to address vaccine hesitancy in the South Asian population in future COVID-19 waves or pandemics.

Disparities and Outcomes in the First and Second Year of the Pandemic on Events of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients

Background and Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused several cardiovascular complications, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), in infected patients. This study aims to understand the overall trends of AMI among COVID-19 patients during the first two years of the pandemic and the disparities and outcomes between the first and second years. Materials and Methods: The retrospective analysis was conducted via the 2020 and 2021 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for hospitalizations between April 2020 and December 2021 being analyzed for adults with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 who experienced events of AMI. A comparison of month-to-month events of AMI and mortality of AMI patients with concomitant COVID-19 was made alongside their respective patient characteristics. Results: Out of 2,541,992 COVID-19 hospitalized patients, 3.55% experienced AMI. The highest rate of AMI was in December 2021 (4.35%). No statistical differences in trends of AMI mortality were noted over the 21 months. AMI cases in 2021 had higher odds of undergoing PCI (aOR 1.627, p < 0.01). They experienced higher risks of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.078, p < 0.01), acute ischemic stroke (aOR 1.215, p < 0.01), cardiac arrest (aOR 1.106, p < 0.01), need for mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.133, p < 0.01), and all-cause mortality (aOR 1.032, 95% CI 1.001-1.064, p = 0.043). Conclusions: The incidence of AMI among COVID-19 patients fluctuated over the 21 months of this study, with a peak in December 2021. COVID-19 patients reporting AMI in 2021 experienced higher overall odds of multiple complications, which could relate to the exhaustive burden of the pandemic in 2021 on healthcare, the changing impact of the virus variants, and the hesitancy of infected patients to seek care.

Association between vaccination beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a longitudinal panel survey of adults in the United States, 2021-2022

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been a major limiting factor to the widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. A range of interventions, including mass media campaigns, have been implemented to encourage COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake. Such interventions are often guided by theories of behavior change, which posit that behavioral factors, including beliefs, influence behaviors such as vaccination. Although previous studies have examined relationships between vaccination beliefs and COVID-19 vaccination behavior, they come with limitations, such as the use of cross-sectional study designs and, for longitudinal studies, few survey waves. To account for these limitations, we examined associations between vaccination beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake using data from six waves of a nationally representative, longitudinal survey of U.S. adults (N = 3,524) administered over a nearly 2-year period (January 2021-November 2022). Survey-weighted lagged logistic regression models were used to examine the association between lagged reports of vaccination belief change and COVID-19 vaccine uptake, using five belief scales: (1) importance of COVID-19 vaccines, (2) perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, (3) COVID-19 vaccine concerns and risks, (4) normative beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination, and (5) perceptions of general vaccine safety and effectiveness. Analyses controlled for confounding factors and accounted for within-respondent dependence due to repeated measures. In individual models, all vaccination belief scales were significantly associated with increased COVID-19 vaccine uptake. In a combined model, all belief scales except the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination were significant predictors of vaccine uptake. Overall, belief scales indicating the importance of COVID-19 vaccines and normative beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination were the strongest predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Findings demonstrate that changes in vaccination beliefs influence subsequent COVID-19 vaccine uptake, with implications for the development of future interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination.

"Every Time It Comes Time for Another Shot, It's a Re-Evaluation": A Qualitative Study of Intent to Receive COVID-19 Boosters among Parents Who Were Hesitant Adopters of the COVID-19 Vaccine

COVID-19 vaccine coverage remains low for US children, especially among those living in rural areas and the Southern/Southeastern US. As of 12 September 2023, the CDC recommended bivalent booster doses for everyone 6 months and older. Emerging research has shown an individual may be vaccine hesitant and also choose to receive a vaccine for themselves or their child(ren); however, little is known regarding how hesitant adopters evaluate COVID-19 booster vaccinations. We used an exploratory qualitative descriptive study design and conducted individual interviews with COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adopter parents (n = 20) to explore COVID-19 parental intentions to have children receive COVID-19 boosters. Three primary themes emerged during the analysis: risk, confidence, and intent, with risk assessments from COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine confidence often related to an individual parent's intent to vaccinate. We also found links among individuals with persistent concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine and low COVID-19 vaccine confidence with conditional and/or low/no intent and refusal to receive recommended boosters for children. Our findings suggest that healthcare providers and public health officials should continue making strong recommendations for vaccines, continue to address parental concerns, and provide strong evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy even among the vaccinated.

Community Level Correlates of COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Introduction: Evidence exists that individual-level sociodemographic factors contribute to vaccine hesitancy, but it is unknown how community-level factors affect COVID-19 booster dose hesitancy. The current study aims to fill this knowledge gap by comparing data from a nationwide survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy with a community-level indicator, i.e., the Distressed Communities Index (DCI). Methods: Attitudes toward vaccinations, vaccine literacy, COVID-19 vaccine confidence index, and trust were measured using a 48-item, psychometrically valid and reliable survey tool. In this study, 2138 survey participants residing in the United States were divided into quintiles of varying community distress levels based on their zip codes using the DCI. Data were analyzed through Chi-square, one-way ANOVA, and post hoc analysis with Tukey's test. Results: A significantly higher proportion of participants from the distressed communities had lower trust than their prosperous counterparts (26.6% vs. 37.6%, p < 0.001). On the contrary, participants from the prosperous communities had significantly higher vaccine confidence index scores than those in distressed communities (2.22 ± 1.13 vs. 1.70 ± 1.01, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings affirm the importance of developing community-level interventions to promote trust in COVID-19 vaccinations and increase booster dose uptake. From these results, future studies can examine the efficacy of various community-level interventions.

Information Consumption, Trust Dynamics and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Older Adults: Implications for Health Messaging

Staying well informed about the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine recommendations is vital for older adults, especially for low-income older adults, who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. However, the overwhelming infodemic poses a significant challenge, affecting vaccine decision-making. This study explores how a group of predominantly low-income older adults navigate health information and how their trust in information and vaccines evolves throughout the pandemic. Our objective is to provide insights that will guide future public health messaging for this demographic. Analyzing qualitative data from 77 older adults (aged 65 to 94) collected through focus groups and interviews, our findings reveal that participants' experiences with information overload eroded their trust in authority, leading to vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, the need for a booster has affected belief in vaccine safety and efficacy. As participants lost faith in the media and authoritative sources, they increasingly leaned on personal networks for guidance. These results underscore the urgent necessity for clear, unambiguous ongoing vaccine guidance to restore institutional trust among older adults. Additionally, recognizing the influential role of direct networks in vaccine decisions, integrating care workers, service providers, and peer-to-peer support into health messaging mechanisms could prove valuable.

Social processes, practical issues, and COVID-19 vaccination among hesitant adults

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to examine relationships between COVID-19 vaccination, social processes, and the practical issues of healthcare coverage and workplace requirements. We examine these relationships among individuals who expressed some degree of hesitancy towards receiving the vaccine. Assessing relationships between COVID-19 vaccination, social processes, and practical issues among vaccine-hesitant individuals has implications for public health policy and intervention.

METHODS

We analyzed weighted data from a random sample phone survey of Arkansas adults (N = 2,201) between March 1st and March 28th, 2022 and constrained our analytical sample to those who had reported some degree of vaccine hesitancy (N = 1,251). Statistical analyses included weighted and unweighted descriptive statistics, weighted bivariate logistic regressions, and a weighted multivariate logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratios for COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

More than two-thirds (62.5 %) of respondents were vaccinated, despite their hesitancy. Adjusted odds of COVID-19 vaccination were greater among Black (OR = 2.55; 95 % CI[1.63, 3.97]) and Hispanic respondents (OR = 2.46; 95 % CI[1.53, 3.95]), respondents whose healthcare provider recommended vaccination (OR = 2.50; 95 % CI[1.66, 3.77]), and as perceptions of vaccination coverage (OR = 2.04; 95 % CI[1.71, 2.43]) and subjective social status increased (OR = 1.10; 95 % CI[1.01, 1.19]). Adjusted odds of COVID-19 vaccination were greater among respondents with a workplace that recommended (OR = 1.96; 95 % CI[1.03, 3.72]) or required vaccination (OR = 12.62; 95 % CI[4.76, 33.45]) and among respondents who were not employed (OR = 1.82; 95 % CI[1.10, 3.01]) compared to those whose workplace did not recommend or require COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Some hesitant individuals become vaccinated despite their hesitancy-a group we refer to as "hesitant adopters." Social processes and practical issues are important correlates of vaccination among those who are hesitant. Workplace requirements appear to be of particular importance for vaccination among hesitant individuals. Provider recommendations, norms, social status, and workplace policies may be effective points of intervention among those who express vaccine hesitancy.