Effect of educational and financial incentive-based interventions on immunization attitudes, beliefs, intentions and receipt among close contacts of pregnant women

Health and non-health benefits and equity impacts of individual-level economic relief programs during epidemics/pandemics in high income settings: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Economic relief programs are strategies designed to sustain societal welfare and population health during a regional or global scale infectious disease outbreak. While economic relief programmes are considered essential during a regional or global health crisis, there is no clear consensus in the literature about their health and non-health benefits and their impact on promoting equity.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review, searching eight electronic databases from January 01, 2001, to April 3, 2023, using text words and subject headings for recent pathogens (coronavirus (COVID-19), Ebola, Influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), HIV, West Nile, and Zika), and economic relief programs; but restricted eligibility to high-income countries and selected diseases due to volume. Title and abstract screening were conducted by trained reviewers and Distiller AI software. Data were extracted in duplicates by two trained reviewers using a pretested form, and key findings were charted using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

We identified 27,263 de-duplicated records, of which 50 were eligible. Included studies were on COVID-19 and Influenza, published between 2014 and 2023. Zero eligible studies were on MERS, SARS, Zika, Ebola, or West Nile Virus. We identified seven program types of which cash transfer (n = 12) and vaccination or testing incentive (n = 9) were most common. Individual-level economic relief programs were reported to have varying degrees of impact on public health measures, and sometimes affected population health outcomes. Expanding paid sick leave programs had the highest number of studies reporting health-related outcomes and positively impacted public health measures (isolation, vaccination uptake) and health outcomes (case counts and the utilization of healthcare services). Equity impact was most often reported for cash transfer programs and incentive for vaccination programs. Positive effects on general well-being and non-health outcomes included improved mental well-being and quality of life, food security, financial resilience, and job security.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that individual-level economic relief programs can have significant impacts on public health measures, population health outcomes and equity. As countries prepare for future pandemics, our findings provide evidence to stakeholders to recognize health equity as a fundamental public health goal when designing pandemic preparedness policies.

Acceptability of an Incentivized Peer Referral Intervention to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Adults in Yopougon-Est, Côte d'Ivoire

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy persists as a barrier to vaccine uptake among adults across geographies. We pilot-tested an incentivized peer referral intervention in Yopougon-Est, Côte d'Ivoire, to encourage adults who recently received COVID-19 vaccination to discuss their experiences and motivate family and friends to seek vaccination.Implementation: From May through June 2023, the intervention operated at 2 vaccination sites, where staff approached individuals immediately after receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Interested vaccine recipients received up to 9 referral coupons to distribute among their social circles, with a small financial incentive (approximately US$3) offered for each person they referred who returned to 1 of the 2 sites for COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

We collected data on numbers of people vaccinated and coupons returned. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 referred vaccine recipients and 7 public health officials.

RESULTS

During the 6-week intervention, 450 newly vaccinated individuals were offered the opportunity to enroll, with 197 opting to distribute coupons. Nearly half (45%) of these peer mobilizers who distributed coupons referred at least 1 person who subsequently came in for vaccination, and most of this subset had 2 or more completed referrals. Qualitative findings revealed that coupons served as effective reminders, sparking discussions within social networks and prompting vaccine-seeking behavior. According to the referred vaccine recipients, hearing about their peers' vaccination experience influenced uptake. Vaccine recipients and public health officials found the small referral incentive acceptable. Officials noted the intervention's potential utility and cost effectiveness, suggesting possible sustainability.

CONCLUSION

This incentivized peer referral intervention, capitalizing on peer networks and social norms, holds promise for increasing vaccine uptake in Yopougon-Est and potentially in other vaccination contexts globally. Practitioners can leverage the implementation guide and training materials we developed to replicate the intervention at larger scale and assess impact on vaccination trends.

LetsTalkShots: personalized vaccine risk communication

Introduction

Vaccine hesitancy is a global health threat undermining control of many vaccine-preventable diseases. Patient-level education has largely been ineffective in reducing vaccine concerns and increasing vaccine uptake. We built and evaluated a personalized vaccine risk communication website called LetsTalkShots in English, Spanish and French (Canadian) for vaccines across the lifespan. LetsTalkShots tailors lived experiences, credible sources and informational animations to disseminate the right message from the right messenger to the right person, applying a broad range of behavioral theories.

Methods

We used mixed-methods research to test our animation and some aspects of credible sources and personal narratives. We conducted 67 discussion groups (n = 325 persons), stratified by race/ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, and White people) and population (e.g., parents, pregnant women, adolescents, younger adults, and older adults). Using a large Ipsos survey among English-speaking respondents (n = 2,272), we tested animations aligned with vaccine concerns and specific to population (e.g., parents of children, parents of adolescents, younger adults, older adults).

Results

Discussion groups provided robust feedback specific to each animation as well as areas for improvements across animations. Most respondents indicated that the information presented was interesting (85.5%), clear (96.0%), helpful (87.0%), and trustworthy (82.2%).

Discussion

Tailored vaccine risk communication can assist decision makers as they consider vaccination for themselves, their families, and their communities. LetsTalkShots presents a model for personalized communication in other areas of medicine and public health.

MomsTalkShots, tailored educational app, improves vaccine attitudes: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many pregnant women and parents have concerns about vaccines. This analysis examined the impact of MomsTalkShots, an individually tailored educational application, on vaccine attitudes of pregnant women and mothers.

METHODS

MomsTalkShots was the patient-level component of a multi-level intervention to improve maternal and infant vaccine uptake that also included provider- and practice-level interventions. The impact of these interventions was studied using a two-by-two factorial design, randomizing at both the patient- and the practice-level. Study staff recruited pregnant women from a diverse set of prenatal care practices in Colorado and Georgia between June 2017 and July 2018. All participants (n = 2087) received a baseline survey of maternal and infant vaccine intentions and attitudes, and two follow-up surveys at least 1 month and 1 year after their infant's birth, respectively. Half of participants (n = 1041) were randomly assigned to receive educational videos through MomsTalkShots, algorithmically tailored to their vaccine intentions, attitudes, and demographics. Since the practice/provider intervention did not appear impactful, this analysis focused on MomsTalkShots regardless of the practice/provider intervention.

RESULTS

By 1 month post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (61% among MomsTalkShots recipients vs 55% among controls; Odds Ratio: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.23-2.09), confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (73% vs 63%; OR: 1.97, 95%CI: 1.47-2.65), and perceived vaccine knowledge (55% vs 48%; OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.13-1.72). Among those intending not to vaccinate at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (38% vs 32%; OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-3.71) and confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (44% vs 28%; OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.46-4.69). By 1 year post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (62% vs 50%; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36-2.24) and trust in vaccine information from obstetricians and pediatricians (64% vs 55%; OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.17-2.00). Among those uncertain about vaccinating at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (47% vs 12%; OR: 6.89, 95%CI: 1.52-31.25) and reduced infant vaccine safety concerns (71% vs 91%; OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.06-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

MomsTalkShots improved pregnant women's and mothers' knowledge and perceptions of maternal and infant vaccines and the diseases they prevent, and offers a scalable tool to address vaccine hesitancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/09/2016 (registration number: NCT02898688).

Under-Vaccination in Adults: Qualitative Insights Into Perceived Barriers Reported by Vaccine Supporters, Undecided and Refuters

Although vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of preventing disease, vaccine hesitancy has been included among the ten threats of global health. Addressing low adult vaccination rates requires an adequate understanding of people's views. We explored perceived barriers to immunization among under-vaccinated adults to identify potential differences among vaccine supporters, refuters, and those who are undecided. We conducted a multi-center, mixed-methods study at 23 primary care practices in Greece. Each day, we asked three new randomly-selected adult healthcare users who attended the practice over the course of 30 consecutive working days. We used thematic content analysis to analyze their written answers to open-ended questions that addressed reasons for not getting vaccinated. Out of 1571 participants, two-thirds reported they were under-vaccinated as adults, thus accounting for three out of five of the supporters and the vast majority of the undecided and refuters. “Concerns/fears,” a “perception of low susceptibility to disease due to good health status,” the “absence of healthcare professional’s recommendation,” and “previous negative experiences” were four themes common to all three groups. Additional barriers reported by supporters and the undecided included “knowledge gaps about the necessity of adult vaccination,” “negligence,” and lack of “accessibility.” Among refuters, additional themes identified were “mistrust in pharmaceutical companies” and “disbelief in vaccine effectiveness.” In conclusion, under-vaccination is common, not only among refuters or the undecided, but also among supporters of adult vaccination. We found similarities and differences in under-vaccinated adults’ perceived barriers, depending on their individual perspectives. Physicians and public health services should take into consideration the impact of the wide range of attitudes and beliefs in their effort to address the underlying barriers to vaccination compliance as they attempt to increase vaccination coverage in adults.