Measuring vaccine hesitancy, confidence, trust and flu vaccine uptake: Results of a national survey of White and African American adults

The Roles of Social Media Use and Medical Mistrust in Black Americans' COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The RISP Model Perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to healthcare and public health messaging in the United States. One area of focus has been vaccination uptake among Black Americans, who have experienced COVID-19 deaths disproportionate to their share of the United States population, raising questions about the processes involved in vaccination perceptions and behaviors. Guided by the Risk Information Seeking and Processing model, this study explored the roles of medical mistrust and social media as a source of risk information in Black Americans' vaccine hesitancy. Survey results from a YouGov panel sample of Black Americans (n = 1,136; 53.5% female) showed that social media use and medical mistrust were positively associated with belief in misinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccine, which, in turn, was positively related to vaccine hesitancy through perceived information insufficiency and information seeking intentions. Furthermore, we found that belief in misinformation and subjective norms toward anti-vaccination also serially mediated the association between social media use and medical mistrust with vaccine hesitancy. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Exploring Hesitancy, Motivations, and Practical Issues for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Vaccine-Hesitant Adopter Parents Using the Increasing Vaccination Model

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children remains low, and many parents report being hesitant to get their children vaccinated. This study explores factors influencing hesitancy and the facilitators that helped hesitant adopter parents choose to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 despite their hesitancy.

METHOD

We use a qualitative descriptive design with individual interviews (n = 20) to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and facilitators of vaccination among hesitant adopter parents. The Increasing Vaccination Model domains (thoughts and feelings, social processes, and practical issues) provided the framework for initial coding, and the research team identified nine emergent themes.

RESULTS

Findings document the factors influencing hesitancy and the facilitators motivating COVID-19 vaccination among hesitant adopter parents.

DISCUSSION

Findings fill the gap in the literature by providing hesitant adopters' lived experience, perspectives on vaccine hesitancy, and the influential factors that helped participants overcome their hesitancy and choose to vaccinate their children against COVID-19.

Understanding HPV Vaccine Hesitancy and What Helped Hesitant Adopter Parents Have Their Children Vaccinated Despite Their Hesitancy

INTRODUCTION

One out of four parents reported HPV vaccine hesitancy; however, little is known about HPV vaccine-hesitant parents who vaccinate their children (e.g., hesitant adopters).

METHOD

We use individual interviews (n = 8) to explore hesitancy and facilitators for overcoming hesitancy among hesitant adopter parents. We drew a priori codes from the Increasing Vaccination Model domains and identified seven emergent secondary themes.

RESULTS

Understandable information about safety, side effects, and effectiveness could address HPV vaccine hesitancy. Health care professionals, family, friends, and coworkers were trusted vaccine and vaccination information sources. The study documents the lack of access to HPV vaccines with established health care providers as a barrier to vaccination.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study of hesitant adopter parents that expands our understanding of factors driving HPV vaccination among them. Study insights can inform future efforts to increase HPV vaccine uptake among the hesitant.

Influences on COVID-19 booster uptake among adults intending to receive a booster: a qualitative study

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been recommended for all Americans 12 years of age and older. However, uptake remains suboptimal with only 17% of the United States (US) population boosted as of May 2023. This is a critical public health challenge for mitigating the ongoing effects of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 booster uptake is not currently well understood, and few studies in the US have explored the vaccination process for booster uptake in a 'post-pandemic' context. This study fills gaps in the literature through qualitative analysis of interviews with a racially/ethnically diverse sample of Arkansans who received the COVID-19 vaccine main series and expressed intent to receive a booster (n = 14), but had not yet received the COVID-19 booster at the time we recruited them. All but one did not receive the booster by the time of the interview. Participants described influences on their vaccination behavior and uptake of boosters including reduced feelings of urgency; continued concerns about the side effects; social contagion as a driver of urgency; increasing practical barriers to access and missing provider recommendations. Our findings highlight the importance of considering vaccination as an ongoing, dynamic process drawing on past/current attitudes, prior experience, perceptions of risk and urgency and practical barriers. Based on these findings, healthcare providers should continue to provide strong, consistent recommendations for COVID-19 boosters to patients, even among those with histories of vaccine uptake.

Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook

Low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in the US has been widely attributed to social media misinformation. To evaluate this claim, we introduce a framework combining lab experiments (total N = 18,725), crowdsourcing, and machine learning to estimate the causal effect of 13,206 vaccine-related URLs on the vaccination intentions of US Facebook users (N ≈ 233 million). We estimate that the impact of unflagged content that nonetheless encouraged vaccine skepticism was 46-fold greater than that of misinformation flagged by fact-checkers. Although misinformation reduced predicted vaccination intentions significantly more than unflagged vaccine content when viewed, Facebook users' exposure to flagged content was limited. In contrast, unflagged stories highlighting rare deaths after vaccination were among Facebook's most-viewed stories. Our work emphasizes the need to scrutinize factually accurate but potentially misleading content in addition to outright falsehoods.

Routine Vaccination During Pregnancy Among People Living With HIV in the United States

Importance

Pregnancy represents a window of opportunity for vaccination due to established maternal and fetal benefits of vaccination. Little is known about receipt of routinely recommended vaccines in pregnancy, specifically tetanus, diphtheria, plus acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza, among pregnant people living with HIV (PLHIV).

Objective

To estimate prevalence of vaccination receipt among pregnant people with HIV (PLHIV) and identify demographic and clinical characteristics associated with vaccination.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter cohort study included women participating in Women's Health Study (WHS) of the Surveillance Monitoring for ART Toxicities (SMARTT) Study of the Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study. The network has been enrolling pregnant PLHIV at 22 US sites since 2007. Participants for this study enrolled between December 2017 and July 2019. Data analysis was conducted from October 2021 to March 2022.

Exposure

Data on vaccination in pregnancy were collected through medical record abstraction.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Vaccination receipt was defined as Tdap vaccination received at less than 36 weeks' gestation and influenza vaccination at any gestational age, based on current guidelines. Log-binomial and modified Poisson regression models with generalized estimating equations were fit to identify factors associated with successful receipt of (1) Tdap, (2) influenza, and (3) both vaccinations.

Results

A total of 310 pregnancies among 278 people participating in the WHS were included (mean [SD] age, 29.5 [6.1] years; 220 [71%] Black, 77 [25%] Hispanic, and 77 [25%] race and ethnicity other than Black; 64 [21%] with perinatally acquired HIV). Less than one-third of pregnancies were vaccinated as recommended (Tdap, 32.6% [95% CI, 27.4%-38.1%]; influenza, 31.6% [95% CI, 26.5%-37.1%]; both, 22.6% [95% CI, 18.0%-27.6%]). People living with perinatally acquired HIV, those who did not identify as Black, or those who were multiparous had adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) less than 1, while older PLHIV had aRRs greater than 1, but these differences did not reach statistical significance (perinatally acquired HIV: adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.02; race other than Black: aRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.26-1.08; multiparous: aRR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00; age 24-29 years: aRR, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.92-4.48).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this diverse, multicenter cohort of pregnant PLHIV, receipt of recommended vaccinations was low. Identifying and addressing barriers to vaccination receipt is urgently needed for pregnant people with HIV.

The Vaccine Training Barometer: Assessing healthcare providers' confidence to answer vaccine-related questions and their training needs

Healthcare providers (HCP) are seen by the public as the most trustworthy source of information about vaccination. While HCPs could be a valuable partner to increase vaccine confidence in general, it is not clear whether they feel confident themselves to address questions concerning vaccination. In the context of the EU Joint Action on Vaccination (EU-JAV), the Vaccine Training Barometer, an online survey tool, was developed to assess how frequently HCPs receive questions about vaccination, how confident they feel to answer these questions, and to what extent they are willing to follow extra training. After a pilot test in Flanders, Belgium, the Barometer was launched and completed by 833 HCPs in Flanders and 291 HCPs in the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Navarre and Valencian Community from November 2020 until January 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, just before and during the start of the first COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. In both countries, HCPs frequently received questions about vaccination (mostly on a daily or weekly basis), and about two thirds of them indicated that the frequency of questions had increased during the three months prior to completing the survey. Most questions were about the side effects and safety of vaccines. In both countries, a considerable proportion of HCPs did not feel confident to answer vaccine-related questions (31.5% felt confident in Flanders, 21.6% in Spain). A large proportion of HCPs received questions in the last three months before the survey that they could not answer (52.4% of respondents in Flemish sample, 41.5% in Spanish sample). Only 11.4% (Flanders) and 11.3% (Spain) of the respondents felt they gained sufficient knowledge through their standard education to be able to answer questions about vaccination. Almost all respondents were willing to follow extra training on vaccination (Flanders: 95.4%, Spain: 96.6%). The Vaccine Training Barometer is thus a useful tool to monitor HCPs' confidence to answer questions about vaccination and to capture their training needs.

Predictors of seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among adults in Tennessee during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has convoluted hesitancy toward vaccines, including the seasonal influenza (flu) vaccine. Because of COVID-19, the flu season has become more complicated; therefore, it is important to understand all the factors influencing the uptake of these vaccines to inform intervention targets. This article assesses factors related to the uptake of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines among adults in Tennessee.

Methods

A cross-sectional, secondary data analysis of 1,400 adults was conducted in Tennessee. The adult sample came from two data sources: Data source 1 completed a baseline survey from January to March 2022, and data source 2 was completed from May to August 2022. Data on vaccine attitudes, facilitators and barriers, and communication needs were collected via random digit dial by Scientific Telephone Samples (STS). Two multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to predict sociodemographic and overall vaccine-related factors associated with receipt or non-receipt (referent) of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines.

Results

Approximately 78% of the adult sample had received the COVID-19 vaccination. A significant positive association for COVID-19 vaccine uptake was seen among those who were older (aged 50-65) (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2-3.2), Black (aOR = 2.0; 95% CI:1.3-2.8), and had a college education and higher (aOR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.5-3.6). However, there was a significant negative association for persons reporting they were extremely religious (aOR = 0.5; 95% CI:0.3-0.9). Over 56% of the adult sample had received the influenza vaccination this season. Those who had a higher annual household income ($80,000+) (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.3-2.6) and had health insurance (aOR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.4-4.8) had a significant positive association with influenza vaccine receipt. However, those who were employed part-time or were unemployed had a significant negative association for influenza vaccine receipt (aOR = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9). Both COVID-19 and influenza vaccine receipt had strongly significant positive trends with increasing belief in effectiveness and trust (p < 0.0001) and strongly significant negative trends with higher levels of overall vaccine hesitancy (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Strategies to increase COVID-19 and influenza vaccination should be age-specific, focus on increasing geographical and financial access, and offer tailored messages to address concerns about these vaccines.

The politics of vaccination: a closer look at the beliefs, social norms, and prevention behaviors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake within two US political parties

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and suboptimal vaccine uptake rates are pressing public health challenges. Vaccine hesitancy has been observed for different vaccines. For COVID-19 vaccines, multiple factors influence vaccine uptake in the U.S. including political ideology. A more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake within political parties is needed. This study assesses the relationship between known vaccine hesitancy factors and vaccine uptake within two major political parties. Data from 804 U.S. participants in an online survey from June 2021 was used to assess the association between COVID-19 vaccine uptake (no dose vs. any dose) and categories of factors thought to influence vaccine uptake (sociodemographic variables, COVID-19 disease and vaccine belief variables, belief in COVID-19 prevention behavior variables, and social network features variables) for Republicans and Democrats using bivariate and multivariate regression. 65.4% of the sample reported having received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (22.6% Republican and 52.1% Democrat). In the total sample bivariate model, Democrat participants had significantly greater odds of having received a dose of the vaccine as compared to Republican participants (OR = 2.51, 95%CI = 1.73-3.64). In adjusted models, the speed of vaccine development was negatively associated with vaccine uptake for both Republicans (aOR = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.06-0.57) and Democrats (aOR = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.19-0.86), as was concern about side effects from the vaccine (Republicans: aOR = 0.15; 95%CI = 0.05-0.47; Democrats: aOR = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.06-0.31). COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Republicans, but not Democrats, was associated with belief that the vaccine prevents COVID-19 (aOR = 3.29, 95%CI = 1.29-8.37) and belief about friends' vaccine intentions (aOR = 6.19, 95%CI = 2.39-16.05). There were no significant factors unique to Democrats. Concerns about aspects of COVID-19 vaccine safety for both political groups suggest that vaccine advocacy interventions should universally address these factors. However, Republican beliefs in vaccine efficacy and in friends' vaccine intentions suggest a need for Republican-specific messaging.

"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.

Empathic Engagement With the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitant in Private Facebook Groups: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Vaccine misinformation has been widely spread on social media, but attempts to combat it have not taken advantage of the attributes of social media platforms for health education.

METHODS

The objective was to test the efficacy of moderated social media discussions about COVID-19 vaccines in private Facebook groups. Unvaccinated U.S. adults were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized. In the intervention group, moderators posted two informational posts per day for 4 weeks and engaged in relationship-building interactions with group members. In the control group, participants received a referral to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center. Follow-up surveys with participants (N = 478) were conducted 6 weeks post-enrollment.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks follow-up, no differences were found in vaccination rates. Intervention participants were more likely to show improvements in their COVID-19 vaccination intentions (vs. stay same or decline) compared with control (p = .03). They also improved more in their intentions to encourage others to vaccinate for COVID-19. There were no differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence or intentions between groups. General vaccine and responsibility to vaccinate were higher in the intervention compared with control. Most participants in the intervention group reported high levels of satisfaction. Participants engaged with content (e.g., commented, reacted) 11.8 times on average over the course of 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging with vaccine-hesitant individuals in private Facebook groups improved some COVID-19 vaccine-related beliefs and represents a promising strategy.

Let Us Just Ask People What They Think: Community Perceptions and Recommendations about Coronavirus Vaccination

Introduction

Despite widespread efforts to promote coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in the United States, a significant segment of the population is still unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated.

Objective

The objective of this study was to understand attitudes toward the vaccine in patients presenting to an urban emergency department.

Methods

We used a qualitative analysis and semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of patients presenting to an urban emergency department from January 18, 2021, to March 14, 2021. Our final sample consisted of 32 people.

Results

We found that people trusted their own medical providers rather than popular or political figures. Critiques of the vaccination program highlighted difficulties in navigation and perceptions of inequity.

Conclusions

Equitable distribution strategies and honest messaging may facilitate acceptance of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Trustworthy sources for vaccine knowledge should be used to target populations in which vaccine hesitancy is a persistent concern.

Contextual Pathways Linking Cumulative Experiences of Racial Discrimination to Black American Men's COVID Vaccine Hesitancy

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed and widened racialized health disparities, underscoring the impact of structural inequities and racial discrimination on COVID-19 vaccination uptake. A sizable proportion of Black American men report that they either do not plan to or are unsure about becoming vaccinated against COVID-19. The present study investigated hypotheses regarding the mechanisms by which experiences of racial discrimination are associated with Black American men's COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling with 4 waves of data from 242 Black American men (aged ~ 27) living in resource-poor communities in the rural South. Study findings revealed that racial discrimination was indirectly associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy via increased endorsement of COVID-19 conspiratorial beliefs. Findings also demonstrated that increased levels of ethnic identity strengthen the association between experiences of racial discrimination and COVID-19 conspiratorial beliefs. In contrast, increased levels of social support weakened the association between cumulative experiences of racial discrimination and COVID conspiratorial beliefs. Taken together, these results suggest that racial discrimination may promote conspiratorial beliefs which undermine Black American men's willingness to be vaccinated. Future interventions aimed towards promoting vaccine uptake among Black American men may benefit from the inclusion of targeted efforts to rebuild cultural trust and increase social support.

Trust in public health institutions moderates the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine discussion groups on Facebook

BACKGROUND

Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake.

METHOD

We analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants' partisan identity, political views, and information trust views.

RESULTS

We found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (P = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs (P = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans (P = .03), conservatives (P = .02), and participants who distrusted government (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views.

Increasing equity in adult immunization through community-level action

Inequities in availability and access to adult vaccinations represent significant gaps in the US public health infrastructure. Adults in racial and ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive routinely recommended vaccinations due to systemic barriers, distribution inequities, and lack of trust in vaccines; similar disparities were seen during early COVID-19 vaccination efforts. However, a deliberate focus on reducing disparities can yield progress. National data show narrowing of racial and ethnic adult COVID-19 vaccination coverage disparities over time, highlighting the value of the equity-focused, community-level interventions implemented during the pandemic. This paper describes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic to address racial and ethnic disparities in adult immunization, and how lessons learned may be applied post-pandemic. Progress made is likely to be lost without sustained support for adult vaccination at national, state, and community levels.

Seasonality of endemic COVID-19

Successive waves of infection by SARS-CoV-2 have left little doubt that this virus will transition to an endemic disease. Foreknowledge of when to expect seasonal surges is crucial for healthcare and public health decision-making. However, the future seasonality of COVID-19 remains uncertain. Evaluating its seasonality is complicated due to the limited years of SARS-CoV-2 circulation, pandemic dynamics, and varied interventions. In this study, we project the expected endemic seasonality by employing a phylogenetic ancestral and descendant state approach that leverages long-term data on the incidence of circulating HCoV coronaviruses. Our projections indicate asynchronous surges of SARS-CoV-2 across different locations in the northern hemisphere, occurring between October and January in New York and between January and March in Yamagata, Japan. This knowledge of spatiotemporal surges leads to medical preparedness and enables the implementation of targeted public health interventions to mitigate COVID-19 transmission.IMPORTANCEThe seasonality of COVID-19 is important for effective healthcare and public health decision-making. Previous waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections have indicated that the virus will likely persist as an endemic pathogen with distinct surges. However, the timing and patterns of potentially seasonal surges remain uncertain, rendering effective public health policies uninformed and in danger of poorly anticipating opportunities for intervention, such as well-timed booster vaccination drives. Applying an evolutionary approach to long-term data on closely related circulating coronaviruses, our research provides projections of seasonal surges that should be expected at major temperate population centers. These projections enable local public health efforts that are tailored to expected surges at specific locales or regions. This knowledge is crucial for enhancing medical preparedness and facilitating the implementation of targeted public health interventions.

Whose Norms to Follow? Effects of Social Norm Specificity on Black Americans' Intention to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines

COVID-19 has caused tremendous disruptions to public health and social stability. While the record-breaking speed of vaccine development brings a beam of light to put this global pandemic under control, public health professionals struggle to motivate certain population segments to be vaccinated. This research examined how social norms varying in reference group specificity influenced the intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 among unvaccinated Black Americans. This report documented findings yielded from the first wave of data collection of a longitudinal study conducted in June 2021, with a total of 1,278 Black Americans who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. The results showed that participants' perceived norms among important others, Black Americans, and all Americans differed in their effects on vaccination intention. Moreover, perceived norms among Black Americans strengthened the effect of perceived norms in important others on vaccination intention, whereas perceived norms among all Americans attenuated the relationship between perceived norms among Black Americans and vaccination intention. The findings suggest the importance of considering norm specificity in future theoretical advancements and practical applications of social norms.

Role of Trust, Risk Perception, and Perceived Benefit in COVID-19 Vaccination Intention of the Public

COVID-19 vaccination is an effective method for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study proposed and validated a theoretical intention model for explaining the COVID-19 vaccination intention (CVI) of the public. The theoretical intention model incorporated trust in vaccines, two types of risk perception (risk perception of COVID-19 and risk perception of COVID-19 vaccination), and perceived benefit into a theory of planned behavior (TPB). Structural equation modeling was utilized to test the theoretical intention model with data collected from 816 Chinese adults in China. The results confirmed the crucial role of trust in vaccines, risk perception, and perceived benefit in shaping the CVI of the public. In addition, TPB was found to be applicable in a research context. The theoretical intention model accounted for 78.8% of the variance in CVI. Based on the findings, several practical recommendations for improving COVID-19 vaccination rates were discussed.

COVID-19 Booster Uptake: Are Hesitant Adopters Less Likely to Get a Booster Shot Than Nonhesitant Adopters?

The main objective of this study was to assess whether hesitancy toward receiving the initial COVID-19 vaccine was associated with uptake of the COVID-19 booster several months after it became available to all US adults. We ask whether hesitancy toward the initial COVID-19 vaccine was significantly associated with lower odds of COVID-19 booster uptake among adults. We test this association within the context of the highly rural state of Arkansas. By January 2022, the US had set a global record of nearly 1 million daily cases. The purpose of this study was to advance our understanding of vaccine hesitancy among those who have already received a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and how that hesitancy may shape COVID-19 booster uptake. We analyzed data from a random sample survey of Arkansan adults (N = 2,201) between March 1 and March 28, 2022 and constrained our analytical sample to those who had received a vaccine (N = 1,649). Nearly two-thirds of vaccinated Arkansas residents had received a COVID-19 booster. Hesitancy was common even among vaccinated individuals and was significantly associated with reduced odds of COVID-19 booster uptake, even after controlling for other factors. Findings provide further support for conceptualizing vaccine hesitancy as an attitude related to-but separate from-the behavior of vaccination, as opposed to conflating vaccination with being nonhesitant. Public health interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 booster uptake should pay attention to vaccine hesitancy indicated at the initiation of the series and should not ignore the vaccinated as an important population to target for intervention.

Key Conversations and Trusted Information Among Hesitant Adopters of the COVID-19 Vaccine

COVID-19 vaccines effectively protect against COVID-19-related hospitalization or death, and 67.1% of the US population is fully vaccinated. However, the disparity in COVID-19 vaccination persists among minority and rural populations who often report greater hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines. This exploratory study aimed to understand and document trusted sources of information about the COVID-19 vaccine among a diverse sample of hesitant adopters with in-depth interviews. Participants (n = 21) described how information from trusted sources influenced their decision to get a COVID-19 vaccine despite being hesitant. Participants reported health care professionals, family members, friends, coworkers, community leaders, public health experts, government officials, and the mainstream media as trusted sources of information about the COVID-19 vaccines. Participants discussed obtaining trusted information from multiple modes, including direct conversations with trusted messengers and public health communications from public influencers who reinforced the information shared with trusted messengers. Notably, participants discussed having multiple conversations with trusted messengers during their decision-making process, and these trusted messengers often facilitated the participants' vaccination process. Study findings highlight the continued need for clear, understandable information about vaccine side effects, safety, and efficacy to address concerns that contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Cameroon: The Role of Medical Mistrust and Social Media Use

Most African countries report low COVID-19 vaccination rates (Msellati et al., 2022; WHO Africa; 2020). This study focuses on factors associated with vaccine hesitancy specifically in the country of Cameroon. Social media use and medical mistrust have been suggested as key variables that may increase vaccine hesitancy. Adopting the information-related perspective guided by the risk information seeking and processing model, the current research explored how social media use and medical mistrust are related to vaccine hesitancy among Cameroonians. Survey results from a sample of 1,000 Cameroonians fielded in early 2022 showed that social media use and medical mistrust were positively associated with belief in misinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccine. Belief in misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was negatively associated with perceived information insufficiency. A positive relationship between perceived information insufficiency and information seeking, as well as a negative relationship between information seeking and vaccine hesitancy were also found. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

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.

Changes in Confidence, Feelings, and Perceived Necessity Concerning COVID-19 Booster

The COVID-19 booster first became available to all adults in the U.S. in November 2021 and a bivalent version in September 2022, but a large population remains booster-hesitant; only 17% of Americans have obtained the updated vaccine as of June 2023. We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in 2021 and 2022 (n = 1889 and 1319) to determine whether changes in booster-related feelings or perceptions had occurred and whether they altered vaccination rates over time. We found that both positive and negative emotions had grown stronger between the two years, with the prevalence of annoyance increasing the most (21.5% to 39.7%). The impact of trust on booster intention more than doubled (OR = 7.46 to 16.04). Although perceived risk of infection decreased, more participants in 2022 indicated uncertainty or unwillingness to obtain a new booster than in 2021, while the proportion refusing a booster remained constant at 22.5%. Confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine and feelings of hope from the booster motivated acceptance; both were stronger predictors of booster receptivity than prior vaccination history. Our findings signal a need to rebuild trust by informing people of their continued risk and appealing to positive, especially optimistic emotions to encourage booster uptake. Future research should explore longitudinal trends in behavior and feelings toward new booster doses and the impact of prolonged vaccine hesitancy on infection rates.

The Impact of Meso-Level Factors on SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Early Hesitancy in the United States

The extant literature on the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 virus indicates that the vaccination campaign was lagging, insufficient, and uncoordinated. This study uses the spatial model to identify the drivers of vaccine hesitancy (in the middle of the pandemic), one of the critical steps in creating impactful and effective interventions to influence behavioral changes now and in the future. The applied technique accounted for observed and unobserved homogeneity and heterogeneity among counties. The results indicated that political and religious beliefs, quantified by Cook's political bipartisan index and the percentage of the population affiliated with the main Christian groups, were the main drivers of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. The past vaccination experience and other variables determining the demand and supply of vaccines were also crucial in influencing hesitancy. The results imply that vaccination campaigns require engaging community leaders at all levels rather than depending on politicians alone and eliminating barriers to the supply and demand of vaccines at all levels. Coordination among religious and community leaders would build a practical institutional arrangement to facilitate (rather than frustrate) the vaccination drives.

Understanding Vaccination Among Hesitant Adopters of the COVID-19 Vaccine Using the Increasing Vaccination Model

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was the third leading cause of death in 2021 in the United States and has led to historic declines in life expectancy for Americans. While vaccination is an effective mitigation strategy for COVID-19, vaccine hesitancy remains a major barrier to individual and population-level protection. An emerging literature on hesitant adopters of COVID-19 vaccines highlights co-occurrence of hesitancy and vaccine uptake as an understudied phenomenon, with the potential to provide insight into factors that lead hesitant individuals to become vaccinated despite their hesitancy. We use qualitative interviews among hesitant adopters in Arkansas to examine vaccine hesitancy among this understudied group. Drawing on the Increasing Vaccination Model, we find that the most frequently reported motivations of hesitant adopters were within the domain of social processes, pointing to a critical focal point for targeted health communications intervening in this domain (e.g. social norms, social networks, and altruistic behavior). We find that recommendations from health care workers (HCWs) other than physicians/providers may serve as an effective influence to vaccinate. We also demonstrate negative effects of low provider and HCW confidence and weak recommendations on motivations to vaccinate among individuals expressing vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, we find individual information-seeking behaviors among hesitant adopters bolstered confidence in the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on these findings, clear, accessible, and authoritative health communication has a role in combatting the COVID-19 misinformation/disinformation infodemic.

Integrating the person-centered approach with the study of vaccine hesitancy: Applying latent profile analysis to identify vaccine hesitancy subpopulations and assess their relations with correlates and vaccination outcomes

In scholarly and popular discussions of vaccine hesitancy, authors have repeatedly referred to different "types" of vaccine hesitant individuals; however, almost all modern research on vaccine hesitancy utilizes variable-centered approaches to identify the relation of variables rather than a person-centered approach to identify subpopulations, which suggests that a discrepancy exists between conceptual discussions and empirical research on vaccine hesitancy. For this reason, the current article conducts a latent profile analysis (LPA) on the dimensions of a well-supported vaccine hesitancy measure, which assess hesitancy towards vaccines in general. We also assess the relations of the resultant profiles (e.g., subpopulations) with relevant self-reported outcomes and correlates, wherein most of our outcomes are associated with COVID-19 and flu vaccines. Our LPA results support the existence of eight vaccine hesitancy profiles. The profile with the most unfavorable vaccination outcomes (e.g., willingness, receipt, and word-of-mouth) was associated with greater perceptions that vaccines cause health risks and unneeded when healthy; the profile with the most favorable vaccination outcomes was associated with low levels of all vaccine hesitancy dimensions. The other profiles produced a clear gradient between these two extremes. The profiles also differed regarding their standing on correlates, but the clearest difference was their relation with political orientation. Profiles with more unfavorable vaccination outcomes were associated with conservatism, whereas profiles with more favorable vaccinations outcomes were associated with liberalism. These results provide a new perspective for current understandings of vaccine hesitancy and open several avenues for future research.

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

Background

Despite the United States (US) having an abundant supply of COVID-19 vaccines, vaccination rates lag behind other high-income countries, suggesting that vaccine hesitancy and attitudes play a greater role in public health measures than pure supply and access. With the acknowledgment that vaccination attitudes and status may or may not be correlated, this study examined COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among vaccinated US adults by asking: 1) What is the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the vaccinated? 2) Does COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy vary across sociodemographic characteristics? 3) Does COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy vary by healthcare access and influenza vaccination over the past 5 years?

Methods

Data were collected through an online survey of 2022 US adults with a final analytic sample of 1383 vaccinated respondents.

Results

Overall, 48.8% of vaccinated adults reported some level of hesitancy, while a slight majority reported they were "not at all hesitant". Younger respondents, women, and Black and American Indian or Alaska Native participants had greater adjusted odds of being more hesitant towards receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents who had a primary care physician had greater adjusted odds than those who did not have a primary care physician of being more hesitant towards receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

Conclusions

This is the first population-based national sample study examining COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among vaccinated individuals from subgroups of distinctive backgrounds in order to inform targeted strategies for reducing vaccine hesitancy. Findings can assist in efforts to increase vaccination rates and also decrease vaccine hesitancy at the national level.

Refusal of transplant organs for non-medical reasons including COVID-19 status

Transplant centers and physicians in the United States have limited guidance on the information which they can and cannot provide to transplant candidates regarding donors of potential organs. Patients may refuse organs for a variety of reasons ranging from pernicious requests including racism to misinformation about emerging medicine as with the COVID-19 vaccine and infection. Patient autonomy, organ stewardship, and equity are often at odds in these cases, but precedent indeed exists to help address these challenges. This work uses such cases to highlight the urgent need for uniform, national policy prohibiting informational requests unrelated to well-established risks.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Patients Recovered from COVID-19 Infection in Wuhan, China: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

BACKGROUND

Although patients recovered from COVID-19 infection already have immunity gained from natural infection, they are still at risk of reinfection due to the emergence of new variants of COVID-19 and the diminishing of naturally acquired immunity. COVID-19 vaccine is associated with efficacious protection against COVID-19 infection and could boost infection-acquired immunity, however, certain amounts of COVID-19 survivors have not been vaccinated due to vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and related factors among COVID-19 survivors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among patients recovered from COVID-19 infection in Wuhan, China between June 10 and July 25, 2021. Questionnaire included sociodemographic information, items on COVID-19 infection, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale based on the 3Cs' model, trust in vaccine manufacturers and health facilities, and reasons for the decision to COVID-19 vaccination. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influenced factors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

Among 1422 participants, 538 (37.8%) were not vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 recovered patients who perceived current unhealthy status had more hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccine than those who perceived themselves healthy (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.71). Compared to the asymptomatic patients, patients with mild symptoms were more likely to receive COVID-19 vaccine (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02-2.82). Regarding the 3Cs' model, high complacency and low convenience were significant negative factors for COVID-19 vaccination (P<.05). Trust in vaccine manufacturers and health facilities was a significant positive factor for COVID-19 vaccination (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09-1.19). "Self-needs" was the main reason for patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine; "already have antibodies and do not need vaccination" was the main reason for patients not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the three major factors of vaccine hesitancy, complacency was proved the most notable one among COVID-19 recovered patients, educational campaigns can focus on raising the awareness of risk of infection and the benefits of vaccination to reduce complacency toward vaccination among them. For COVID-19 recovered patients, improving factors related to convenience such as transportation and environment of vaccination and proving door-to-door service were also necessary to facilitate their vaccination. In addition, addressing the concerns about vaccination of COVID-19 recovered patients could foster trust and promote their vaccination.

CLINICALTRIAL

Individual and Contextual Determinants of Flu Vaccination Adherence: A University Nudge Intervention

INTRODUCTION

The University of Salerno has implemented a nudge intervention with the aim of promoting vaccine adherence among employees of academia and identifying individual and contextual determinants that influence adherence.

METHOD

A purpose-built questionnaire was used during the reference period of October-December 2022 in order to assess levels of state anxiety (STAI-Y1), perceived stress (PSS-10), and public sentiments, which influence vaccination behavior, with consequences for the whole population (VCI).

RESULTS

Analysis of the results revealed a difference in mean scores on the PSS: those who have always adhered to the vaccination campaign compared to those who have never been vaccinated perceived higher levels of stress (12.01 vs. 11.33; F = 4.744, p = 0.031); furthermore, there was a relationship between the presence/absence of pathologies and VCI (F = 3,93; df = 1; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The University of Salerno's nudge intervention made its employees more responsible for protecting the health of the academic community and encouraged good adherence to the flu vaccination campaign. University employees, equipped with high cultural tools, sought information primarily from institutional sources indicated by the university during the free vaccination campaign at the university's vaccine center.

Impact of social media news on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior

In order to take advantage of the power of social media to promote vaccination, this study reveals the mechanisms of positive and negative impacts of social media news on vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior. Based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework, we developed a research model to understand the effects of vaccine safety news and risk news from social media (external stimuli) on individuals' psychological organism (i.e., safety perception and risk perception) and consequent behavioral response, vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior. The proposed model was tested by partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on a sample gathered in China from September 2021 to November 2021 and from February 2022 to April 2022 (valid responses = 1579). The results found that the relationship between vaccine risk news from social media and risk perception was higher than the relationship between vaccine safety news from social media and safety perception. Individuals are more sensitive to vaccine risk news than safety news on social media. Moreover, both safety perception and risk perception explained the critical psychological mechanisms behind vaccine hesitancy. Interestingly, ego network density mitigated the effect of safety news on safety perception and the effect of risk news on risk perception. The findings contribute to the S-O-R model, the research on social media effects, and the literature on vaccination attitudes and behaviors. This study also informs public health officials about leveraging the power of social media to motivate the public to accept the COVID-19 vaccines.

Prevalence of influenza-specific vaccination hesitancy among adults in the United States, 2018

BACKGROUND

The role of vaccine hesitancy on influenza vaccination is not clearly understood. Low influenza vaccination coverage in U.S. adults suggests that a multitude of factors may be responsible for under-vaccination or non-vaccination including vaccine hesitancy. Understanding the role of influenza vaccination hesitancy is important for targeted messaging and intervention to increase influenza vaccine confidence and uptake. The objective of this study was to quantify the prevalence of adult influenza vaccination hesitancy (IVH) and examine association of IVH beliefs with sociodemographic factors and early-season influenza vaccination.

METHODS

A four-question validated IVH module was included in the 2018 National Internet Flu Survey. Weighted proportions and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify correlates of IVH beliefs.

RESULTS

Overall, 36.9% of adults were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination; 18.6% expressed concerns about vaccination side effects; 14.8% personally knew someone with serious side effects; and 35.6% reported that their healthcare provider was not the most trusted source of information about influenza vaccinations. Influenza vaccination ranged from 15.3 to 45.2 percentage points lower among adults self-reporting any of the four IVH beliefs. Being female, age 18-49 years, non-Hispanic Black, having high school or lower education, being employed, and not having primary care medical home were associated with hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the four IVH beliefs studied, being hesitant to receiving influenza vaccination followed by mistrust of healthcare providers were identified as the most influential hesitancy beliefs. Two in five adults in the United States were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination, and hesitancy was negatively associated with vaccination. This information may assist with targeted interventions, personalized to the individual, to reduce hesitancy and thus improve influenza vaccination acceptance.

Perceptions of vaccine safety and hesitancy among incarcerated adults and correctional staff in the rural midwest

Objectives

This project assessed vaccine hesitancy among staff and incarcerated adults in one rural medium-security prison in the Midwestern United States and identified differences in hesitancy across sociodemographic and work-related variables.

Methods

610 prison staff and people incarcerated completed a cross-sectional survey in May 2021. The vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS) identified perceived risk and confidence in vaccination. A single item assessed whether people typically follow public health protocols in the prison. A combination of analyses was utilized, including ANOVA, Chi-Square, and Pearson's correlation.

Results

Vaccine hesitancy was moderate to high for both populations. Incarcerated people had more confidence in vaccination than staff; differences did not reach statistical significance. Incarcerated people had statistically significantly higher perceptions of risk compared to staff. Both populations reported doing their best to follow public health protocols. For both populations, vaccine hesitancy varied by education and veteran status. Among staff, hesitancy varied by gender and political beliefs. For people incarcerated, it varied by pre-incarceration income and visit frequency.

Conclusions

Results support the need for public health policy and procedural interventions to reduce hesitancy towards vaccination in correctional settings.

Hesitant but vaccinated: assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the recently vaccinated

We administered a survey during the fifteen-minute wait time after the COVID-19 vaccine was given (N = 1475) to examine attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines among adults who were vaccinated in Arkansas between April 22nd and July 6th, 2021. We found 60% of those who had just been vaccinated reported some level of hesitancy, including 10% who reported being "very hesitant." Hesitancy was not evenly distributed across sociodemographic groups (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education) and was associated with whether a non-English language is spoken in the home, health care coverage, and flu vaccination over the past five years in bivariate analysis. Generalized ordered logistic regression results reveal associations between the log-ordered odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and age, sex, race/ethnicity, health care coverage, health literacy, and flu vaccination over the past five years. Surprisingly, a prior COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These results can inform health care and communication strategies. Further attention to "hesitant adopters" can provide insights into the process of overcoming vaccine hesitancy that are critical to vaccine uptake.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Mozambique: The role of institutional trust

Background

Vaccination plays an imperative role in protecting public health and preventing avoidable mortality. Yet, the reasons for vaccine hesitancy in African countries are not well understood. This study investigates the factors associated with the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine in Mozambique, with a focus on the role of institutional trust.

Methods

The data came from the three waves of the COVID-19 Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) survey which followed a cohort of 1,371 adults in Mozambique over six months (N=3,809). We examined vaccine acceptance based on three measurements: willingness to take vaccine, perceived vaccine efficacy, and perceived vaccine safety. We conducted multilevel regression analysis to investigate the trajectories of, and the association between institutional trust and vaccine acceptance.

Results

One third of the survey participants (37%) would definitely take the vaccine. Meanwhile, 31% believed the vaccine would prevent the COVID-19 infection, and 27% believed the vaccine would be safe. There was a significant decrease in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance between waves 1 and 3 of the survey. Institutional trust was consistently and strongly correlated with different measures of vaccine acceptance. There was a greater decline in vaccine acceptance in people with lower institutional trust. The positive correlation between institutional trust and vaccine acceptance was stronger in younger than older adults. Vaccine acceptance also varied by gender and marital status.

Conclusions

Vaccine acceptance can be volatile even over short periods of time. Institutional trust is a central driver of vaccine acceptance and contributes to the resilience of the health system. Our study highlights the importance of health communication and building a trustful relationship between the general public and the institutions in the context of a global pandemic.

Associations Between General Vaccine Hesitancy and Healthcare Access Among Arkansans

BACKGROUND

Vaccines provide protection against numerous diseases that can cause serious illness and death. However, vaccine hesitancy threatens to undermine progress in reducing preventable diseases and illness. Vaccine hesitancy has been shown to vary by sociodemographic characteristics. However, studies examining associations between healthcare access and vaccine hesitancy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Using a statewide random sample of Arkansas adults, we examined the relationship between general vaccine hesitancy and healthcare access.

DESIGN

From July 12 to 30, 2021, participants were contacted by landlines and cellular phones using random digit dialing.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1500 Arkansas adults were surveyed. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx adults were oversampled to ensure adequate representation. The survey had a cooperation rate of 20%.

MAIN MEASURES

The dependent variable was an ordinal measure of general vaccine hesitancy. Age, gender, race, education, relationship status, and rural/urban residence were included in the model. Healthcare access was measured across four domains: (1) health insurance coverage; (2) having a primary care provider (PCP); (3) forgoing care due to cost; and (4) time since last routine checkup. The relationship between general vaccine hesitancy and healthcare access was modeled using ordinal logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

Mean age was 48.5 years, 51.1% were women, 28% reported a race other than White, and 36.3% held a bachelor's degree or higher. Those with a PCP and those with health insurance had approximately two-thirds the odds of being more hesitant ([OR=0.63, CI=0.47, 0.84] and [OR=0.68; CI=0.49, 0.94]) than those without a PCP and those without health insurance. Participants reporting a routine checkup in the last 2 years were almost half as likely to be more hesitant than those reporting a checkup more than 2 years prior (OR=0.58; CI=0.43, 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest improving access to health insurance, PCPs, and routine preventative care services may be critical to reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Trust In US Federal, State, And Local Public Health Agencies During COVID-19: Responses And Policy Implications

Public health agencies' ability to protect health in the wake of COVID-19 largely depends on public trust. In February 2022 we conducted a first-of-its-kind nationally representative survey of 4,208 US adults to learn the public's reported reasons for trust in federal, state, and local public health agencies. Among respondents who expressed a "great deal" of trust, that trust was not related primarily to agencies' ability to control the spread of COVID-19 but, rather, to beliefs that those agencies made clear, science-based recommendations and provided protective resources. Scientific expertise was a more commonly reported reason for "a great deal" of trust at the federal level, whereas perceptions of hard work, compassionate policy, and direct services were emphasized more at the state and local levels. Although trust in public health agencies was not especially high, few respondents indicated that they had no trust. Lower trust was related primarily to respondents' beliefs that health recommendations were politically influenced and inconsistent. The least trusting respondents also endorsed concerns about private-sector influence and excessive restrictions and had low trust in government overall. Our findings suggest the need to support a robust federal, state, and local public health communications infrastructure; ensure agencies' authority to make science-based recommendations; and develop strategies for engaging different segments of the public.

What motivates adults to accept influenza vaccine? An assessment of incentives, ease of access, messaging, and sources of information using a discrete choice experiment

Seasonal influenza vaccination rates remain low, and contribute to preventable influenza cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the US. While numerous interventions have been implemented to increase vaccine uptake, there is a need to determine which interventions contribute most to vaccine willingness, particularly among age groups with vaccination rates that have plateaued at suboptimal levels. This study aimed to quantify the relative effect of multiple interventions on vaccine willingness to receive influenza vaccine in three age groups using a series of hypothetical situations with different behavioral interventions. We assessed the relative impact of four categories of interventions: source of vaccine messages, type of vaccination messages, vaccination incentives, and ease of vaccine access using a discrete choice experiment. Within each category, we investigated the role of four different attributes to measure their relative contribution to willingness to be vaccinated by removing one option from each of the intervention categories. Among the 1,763 Minnesota residents who volunteered for our study, participants expressed vaccine willingness in over 80% of the scenarios presented. Easy access to drop-in vaccination sites had the greatest impact on vaccine willingness in all age groups. Among the younger age group, small financial incentives also contributed to high vaccine willingness. Our results suggest that public health programs and vaccination campaigns may improve their chances of successfully increasing vaccine willingness if they offer interventions preferred by adults, including facilitating convenient access to vaccination and offering small monetary incentives, particularly for young adults.

COVID-19 vaccine incentive scheduling using an optimally controlled reinforcement learning model

We model Covid-19 vaccine uptake as a reinforcement learning dynamic between two populations: the vaccine adopters, and the vaccine hesitant. Using data available from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), we estimate the payoff matrix governing the interaction between these two groups over time and show they are playing a Hawk-Dove evolutionary game with an internal evolutionarily stable Nash equilibrium (the asymptotic percentage of vaccinated in the population). We then ask whether vaccine adoption can be improved by implementing dynamic incentive schedules that reward/punish the vaccine hesitant, and if so, what schedules are optimal and how effective are they likely to be? When is the optimal time to start an incentive program, how large should the incentives be, and is there a point of diminishing returns? By using a tailored replicator dynamic reinforcement learning model together with optimal control theory, we show that well designed and timed incentive programs can improve vaccine uptake by shifting the Nash equilibrium upward in large populations, but only so much, and incentive sizes above a certain threshold show diminishing returns.

Understanding the psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Black Americans: implications for vaccine communication

BACKGROUND

Guided by the 5C (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) model of vaccination behavior, we examine the psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (i.e. attitudes and intentions toward COVID-19 vaccination) among Black Americans, a group disproportionately affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

METHOD

We conducted a national survey of Black Americans (N = 1,497) in February/March 2021.

RESULTS

We found that, among the five psychological antecedents, three (confidence, calculation - or extensive information searching, and collective responsibility) significantly predicted attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and had indirect effects on vaccination intentions through vaccination attitudes. Two antecedents (confidence and collective responsibility) also directly predicted vaccination intentions. Our analysis suggests that a partially mediated model produced better fit than a fully mediated model.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing culturally tailored interventions for Black Americans that build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, highlight collective responsibility, and attend to Black Americans' information sources is key to boosting Black Americans' COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Future research is needed to understand how historical and ongoing racism affects the psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Black Americans.

Factors Affecting Vaccine Attitudes Influenced by the COVID-19 Pandemic

The development of vaccines has significantly contributed to the success of disease prevention. However, there has been a sharp decline in immunization rates since COVID-19 spread globally. Seemingly overnight, the world shut down and most non-essential medical procedures were postponed. Since the COVID-19 vaccine became available, and the world started going back to normal these vaccine rates have not recovered. In this paper, we review the published literature to explore how convenience factors, perceived risk of vaccination, media or anti-vaccination ideals/movements, and healthcare professionals affect an individual’s compliance to be vaccinated to better understand the factors that contribute to the change in overall vaccination rates.

Childhood vaccine hesitancy in two regions with different socioeconomic backgrounds in Turkey

Aim

This study investigated childhood vaccine hesitancy in two regions with different socioeconomic backgrounds in Kayseri, Turkey.

Subject and methods

The study population consisted of all people over 18 years of age admitted to two family health centers (No 65 and 103) in a city center for any reason.

Results

Participants living in the high socioeconomic status (SES) region had a significantly lower mean rating on the CVHQ (Childhood Vaccine Hesitancy Questionnaire - see below) than those living in the low SES region.

Conclusion

Vaccine hesitancy is the main reason for vaccine refusal. Therefore, authorities should provide adequate and accurate information about the significance of vaccines to raise public awareness.

Trust in scientists on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccine intention in China and the US

When we recognize various factors which influence vaccine willingness, it is unclear whether these factors work the same in different countries. This study explored how trust in scientists was related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancies and vaccine willingness in China and the U.S. We attempted to understand the extent to which the perceived trustworthiness of scientists would predict vaccine hesitancies and intention to get vaccinated differently in these two countries. An online survey with participants in China (N = 391) and in the U.S. (N = 363) was conducted. Participants were asked about their view of scientists' competence, benevolence, and integrity as dimensions of trustworthiness, three types of vaccine hesitancies, as well as their willingness to get vaccinated. The results showed that trust in scientists was negatively related to individual vaccine hesitancy in both China and the U.S., and trust was negatively associated with the level of contextual hesitancy and vaccine-specific hesitancy in the U.S. Higher trust in scientists was also associated with the willingness to get vaccines in the U.S., rather than in China. Results yielded differences in China and the U.S. in how trust in scientists and vaccine hesitancies predicted individuals' willingness to get vaccinated.

Healthcare Access and Experiences of Racial Discrimination as Predictors of General Vaccine Hesitancy

The literature regarding vaccine hesitancy is limited to specific vaccines rather than general vaccine hesitancy. No studies have examined the relationship of general vaccine hesitancy to healthcare access and experiences of racial discrimination. This study fills gaps by examining: (1) socio-demographic factors; (2) associations between healthcare access; and (3) experiences with racial discrimination and general vaccine hesitancy. Survey data were obtained from 2022 US adults from 7 September to 3 October 2021. Racial and ethnic minority populations were oversampled. Age, gender, race, and education were predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Asian respondents had less than two-thirds the odds of being vaccine hesitant. Healthcare access was associated with vaccine hesitancy. Not having health insurance coverage, not having a primary care provider, and not seeing a provider for a routine check-up in the past two years were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. For every one-point increase in racial discrimination score (0-45), the odds of being more vaccine hesitant increased by a factor of 1.03. The findings demonstrate that policy, systems, and environmental factors are critical to addressing vaccine hesitancy. Given the associations between vaccine hesitancy and racial discrimination and healthcare access, more attention should be given to inequities in the healthcare systems in order to address vaccine hesitancy.

Dynamic mechanism of eliminating COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy through web search

This research focuses on the research problem of eliminating COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy through web search. A dynamic model of eliminating COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy through web search is constructed based on the Logistic model, the elimination degree is quantified, the elimination function is defined to analyze the dynamic elimination effect, and the model parameter estimation method is proposed. The numerical solution, process parameters, initial value parameters and stationary point parameters of the model are simulated, respectively, and the mechanism of elimination is deeply analyzed to determine the key time period. Based on the real data of web search and COVID-19 vaccination, data modeling is carried out from two aspects: full sample and segmented sample, and the rationality of the model is verified. On this basis, the model is used to carry out dynamic prediction and verified to have certain medium-term prediction ability. Through this research, the methods of eliminating vaccine hesitancy are enriched, and a new practical idea is provided for eliminating vaccine hesitancy. It also provides a method to predict the quantity of COVID-19 vaccination, provides theoretical guidance for dynamically adjusting the public health policy of the COVID-19, and can provide reference for the vaccination of other vaccines.

Understanding the Impact of General Vaccine Attitudes on the Intent for Early COVID-19 Vaccination

Despite relatively high rates of population spread, morbidity and mortality, the adoption of COVID-19 vaccines among the eligible populations was relatively slow. Some of the reasons for vaccination hesitancy and refusals have been attributed to unique aspects of this pandemic, including attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. However, little attention has been paid to the role of underlying vaccine beliefs in the likelihood of early vaccine adoption for COVID-19. This study provides a more comprehensive assessment of factors influencing willingness to get an early vaccination, and the relative contribution of general vaccine attitudes, compared to demographics, perceived threat and institutional trust. Monthly national surveys were conducted between June and November 2020 using a national consumer panel of U.S. adults (n = 6185). By late November, only 24% of respondents said they were very likely to get a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it became available. While COVID-19 risk perceptions, confidence and trust in key institutions and information sources, and some demographic variables, were predictive of early vaccination intent, general beliefs regarding vaccines played a significant role, even compared to demographics, perceived risk and institutional trust. This lesson from the COVID-19 experience could help inform public health communications in future epidemics.

Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy presents an obstacle to the campaign to control COVID-19. It has previously been found to be associated with youth, female gender, low income, low education, low medical trust, minority ethnic group membership, low perceived risk from COVID-19, use of certain social media platforms and conspiracy beliefs. However, it is unclear which of these predictors might explain variance associated with others.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted with a representative sample of 4343 UK residents, aged 18-75, between 21 November and 21 December 2020. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy were assessed using linear rank-order models.

RESULTS

Coronavirus vaccine hesitancy is associated with youth, female gender, low income, low education, high informational reliance on social media, low informational reliance on print and broadcast media, membership of other than white ethnic groups, low perceived risk from COVID-19 and low trust in scientists and medics, as well as (to a much lesser extent) low trust in government. Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions and general vaccine attitudes appear uniquely predictive, jointly explaining 35% of variance. Following controls for these variables, effects associated with trust, ethnicity and social media reliance largely or completely disappear, whereas the effect associated with education is reversed.

CONCLUSIONS

Strengthening positive attitudes to vaccination and reducing conspiracy suspicions with regards to the coronavirus may have a positive effect on vaccine uptake, especially among ethnic groups with heightened vaccine hesitancy. However, vaccine hesitancy associated with age and gender does not appear to be explained by other predictor variables tested here.

Stages of HPV Vaccine Hesitancy Among Guardians of Female Secondary School Students in China

PURPOSE

Female secondary school students are the primary recommended population for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. However, vaccine hesitancy may affect uptake. In this study, we assessed the vaccine hesitancy levels among the guardians of female secondary school students in China.

METHODS

We developed a questionnaire and conducted cross-sectional surveys among guardians of secondary school girls aged 12-19 years in mainland China based on the Increasing Vaccination Model and the Precaution Adoption Process Model.

RESULTS

We collected 3,225 valid samples. Among the participating guardians, 53.9% were vaccine hesitant, although only 0.9% had refused HPV vaccines. Some individual characteristics of guardians (e.g. sex, education/income level) were associated with understanding HPV vaccines. Better knowledge of HPV vaccines and communication with reliable sources of information were associated with vaccine nonhesitancy. Practical barriers such as vaccine shortage and busy schedules prevented nonhesitant guardians from vaccinating their children.

DISCUSSION

A substantial proportion of the guardians surveyed were HPV vaccine hesitant. Promoting HPV knowledge and communication with reliable sources (e.g. clinical doctors) could help fight against vaccine hesitancy.

When good messages go wrong: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine communication from generally vaccine accepting individuals in Canada

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses.