The social experience of participation in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: Subjects' motivations, others' concerns, and insights for vaccine promotion

Global perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination: Impacts on well-being and inequality

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to examine the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and subjective well-being (SWB), as well as well-being inequality. It employs a conceptual framework that incorporates demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, health, and social support.

METHODS

Using data from the Gallup World Poll (2021-2022), which includes 131,910 respondents across 96 countries, we analyze the association between vaccination status and SWB. The Cantril ladder technique is employed to measure SWB, while regression analyses are conducted to estimate the conditional mean and variance of well-being, allowing for an assessment of well-being inequality.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that vaccinated individuals report significantly higher levels of current SWB (p < .01) and lower well-being inequality (p < .01) than unvaccinated people. Specifically, vaccination is associated with a 0.04 standard deviation increase in SWB and a 0.06 standard deviation decrease in interpersonal well-being inequality. Moreover, those vaccinated exhibit greater optimism regarding their future well-being.

CONCLUSION

The results underscore the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in enhancing both current and expected future well-being while reducing well-being inequality. These findings suggest that public health policies should prioritize vaccine uptake and address underlying socioeconomic factors to promote overall mental health and well-being in the population.

COVID-19 clinical trial participation and awareness in Texas

The COVID-19 pandemic required the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, necessitating quick yet representative clinical trial enrollment to evaluate these preventive measures. However, misinformation around the COVID-19 pandemic and general concerns about clinical trial participation in the U.S. hindered clinical trial enrollment. This study assessed awareness of, willingness to participate in, and enrollment in COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials in Texas. A quota sample of 1,089 Texas residents was collected online from June - July 2022. Respondents were asked if they were aware of, willing to participate in, and had enrolled in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. Overall, 45.8% of respondents reported being aware of clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments or vaccines, but only 21.7% knew how to enroll and only 13.2% had enrolled in a COVID-19 clinical trial. Respondents with bachelor's or graduate degrees were more likely to be aware of clinical trials, more likely to have enrolled in trials, and more willing to participate in treatment trials. Women were less willing to participate and less likely to have enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials than men. Respondents aged 55 years and older were more willing to participate, but less likely to have enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials than 18-to-24-year-olds. Common reasons given for not participating in clinical trials included concerns that COVID-19 treatments may not be safe, government distrust, and uncertainty about what clinical trial participation would entail. Substantial progress is needed to build community awareness and increase enrollment in clinical trials.

Factors that influence recruitment to COVID-19 vaccine trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a unique period characterised by an extraordinary global virus spread. The collective effort to halt the transmission of the virus led to various public health initiatives, including a variety of COVID-19 vaccine trials. Many of these trials used adaptive methods to address the pandemic's challenges, such as the need for rapid recruitment. These adaptive methods allow for modifications to the trial procedures without undermining the trial's integrity, making the research process more flexible and efficient. However, recruiting participants for vaccine trials remains a considerable challenge. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is to explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. Lessons learned from this could help shape future trials' design and conduct, particularly those conducted within a pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with a qualitative component in the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemomikos, Online Resource for Research in Clinical Trials (ORCCA), and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We used the best-fit framework synthesis approach and the Social Ecological Model as an a priori framework. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 539 participants were included. One of these studies included participants in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. In three of the studies, participants were asked hypothetically about their attitudes. Another study included people who had either not responded to or declined an invitation to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. We developed six themes outlining the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: (1) personal gains, (2) perceived risk, (3) influence of family and community, (4) contributing for others, (5) institutional trust and mistrust, and (6) accessibility of the trial.

CONCLUSION

This review sheds light on how people perceive the potential personal, family, and community advantages of trial participation and how these perceptions may be weighed against concerns about vaccine safety. The findings also point toward specific aspects of trial methodology to consider when designing COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Roles and responsibilities of participants, researchers, and the media in the communication of vaccine trials: Experience from the United Kingdom's first COVID-19 vaccine trial

BACKGROUND

The media have played an important part in presenting arguments for and against vaccination. The potential for the media to influence public attitudes to vaccines is becoming increasingly crucial to address.

METHODS

To understand the differing roles and responsibilities in the communication of vaccine trials we draw insight from a retrospective study of 349 survey responses and 102 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2020 with participants in the United Kingdom's first-in-human clinical trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

We found that trial participants had mixed views as to whether their participation conferred responsibility to communicate more widely about their trial experiences. Some participants perceived themselves to have an altruistic obligation to communicate to the media about the trial, and others felt that those who did share their participation had 'attention-seeking' motives. When participants did speak out they preferred to do so anonymously. Frustration was also reported with sensationalised and false media stories. Social media was viewed as a means to accelerate misinformation or as a force for recruitment and public education about trials. Participants were pleased to see trial investigators and trial team playing prominent roles in the media and this instilled confidence in the vaccine and the trial. We discuss these evolving roles and responsibilities for trial communication, concentrating on the views of participants about experiences, opportunities, and risks.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that the pandemic has demonstrated the need for clinical trials to be made more transparent as a scientific practice that requires better public understanding and engagement. For high-profile vaccine trials we recommend; (1) explicit and comprehensive guidance aimed at all participants for interactions with the media; (2) prioritising having open and effectively expressed accounts of trial composition, processes, and participation; (3) offering support and a direct communication channel for journalists to report trials by utilising internal press officers to engage with journalists.

Gay and Bisexual Men's Perceptions about a Potential HIV Vaccine within a Post-COVID-19 Era: A Qualitative Study

To end the HIV epidemic, there is need for targeted strategies to reduce HIV incidence for those most vulnerable, including an HIV vaccine. This study seeks to understand the perceptions that non-PrEP using gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) have about a potential HIV vaccine, while contextualizing their perspectives within the context of heightened vaccine hesitancy that has emerged since the COVID-19 pandemic. Between March and May of 2022, GBMSM (N = 20) participated in in-depth interviews, which assessed their perceptions about an HIV vaccine. Interviews were analysed using a codebook approach to thematic analysis. We oversampled for those unvaccinated against COVID-19 as a proxy for vaccine hesitation. Participants expressed a range of enthusiastic support, cautious optimism and skepticism when presented with the possibility of an HIV vaccine. Factors that drove willingness to receive an HIV vaccine included community-oriented altruism, individualized risk-benefit assessment, and/or the perception that a vaccine could provide a beneficial shift in sexual experiences. Participants also expressed hesitations about receiving an HIV vaccine, including concerns about potential side-effects and efficacy, as well as mistrust in the vaccine development process. Notably, participants often evaluated the vaccine in comparison to PrEP and condoms. Participants offered specific insights into information they would like to receive about an HIV and where/how they would like to receive it. Our findings can help inform future HIV vaccine implementation efforts by offering insights into the factors that motivate and deter GBMSM to receive an HIV vaccine.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Skepticism, Reasons, and Concerns Between Mass Vaccination Centers and General Practices in Germany 2021

Introduction

The reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19 has significantly curbed vaccine uptake. Unlike mass vaccination centers, general practitioners (GPs) might be able to address some of the patients' concerns through their long-term doctor-patient relationship. This study compared vaccination reasons, concerns and skepticism about vaccination, and perceived importance of the vaccine and its hypothetical value between vaccination centers and GP practices.

Methods

A survey was distributed (07/2021-10/2021) among newly vaccinated individuals in ten GP practices (n = 364) and two vaccine centers (n = 474).

Results

Participants in vaccine centers stated more prosocial and benefit-oriented reasons for vaccination, whereas participants in GP practices more often stated the GP's recommendation as the reason. Perceived importance of the vaccine in combating the pandemic was rated higher among individuals at vaccine centers and with higher health awareness and self-efficacy. Participants at both types of sites who preferred a GP for vaccination expressed more vaccination skepticism, which was also related to older age, more health risk concerns related to COVID-19 vaccines, and lower perceived importance of the vaccine.

Conclusion

Our results indicate opportunities for framing future vaccination campaigns that include vaccination centers. Additionally, a rapid GP involvement in future mass vaccinations might be crucial for overcoming attitudinal barriers and achieving higher vaccine uptake.

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.

Does the Message Frame Promote People's Willingness to Vaccinate when they Worry about Side Effects from the COVID-19 Vaccine? Evidence from an Online Survey Experiment in China

Vaccination is an effective strategy for controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, worrying about side effects (WSE) from the COVID-19 vaccine is the leading concern making people hesitant to get vaccinated. Regrettably, there are few studies on alleviating the negative impacts of WSE on COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to assess whether message framing (gain- and loss-framed) can moderate the impacts of WSE on the willingness to vaccinate. We conducted an online self-administered survey experiment with three groups: control group (non-framed group), gain-framed groups, and loss-framed groups. In total, 981 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups, and their willingness to vaccinate themselves, their children, and elderly members was recorded. People with a higher level of WSE exhibited a lower willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. However, the gain- and loss-framed messages increased people's willingness to vaccinate themselves, their children, and the elderly. Compared to the gain-framed messages, the loss-framed messages had a greater impact on enhancing people's willingness to self-vaccinate, but not on vaccinating their children and the elderly. Although the gain- and loss-framed messages weakened the negative impacts of WSE on the willingness to be vaccinated, their buffer effect was non-significantly different. The findings in this study suggest that a loss-framed messaging strategy could be a valuable tool in disseminating information on vaccination against COVID-19.

Why do people take part in vaccine trials? A mixed methods narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To understand why individuals do or do not take part in vaccine trials, exploring the motivators and barriers to identify effective strategies to optimise recruitment in vaccine research.

METHODS

Qualitative studies and quantitative surveys capturing data on reasons for trial participation/decline were included. Six databases were searched from 1996 to October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed risk of bias. Results were reported narratively and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We included 32 studies (17 qualitative; 12 quantitative; 3 mixed-methods) that covered a wide range of populations, geographical areas and disease types. Eight themes were identified 1) altruism; 2) potential for personal benefit; 3) perceived risks; 4) trust or distrust; 5) social networks; 6) stigma; 7) practical implications; 8) research vanguard.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide a detailed description of how potential participants weigh up their decisions to participate in vaccine trials, which could inform the planning and implementation of studies to enhance recruitment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinical trial researchers should consider a patient-centered approach to recruitment, tailoring promoting material and attempt to understand fears, stigma and perceived risks. In addition, recognising the importance of trust and the key role friends, communities, family, and those in supervisory positions play in decisions.

Determination of factors influencing young adults' intention to have COVID-19 vaccine in the Philippines: An integration of Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior

Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to increase around the world and businesses and markets across the world significantly decreased. The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that affect the intention to be vaccinated for the COVID-19 vaccine among young Filipino adults by integrating the Health Belief Model and Extended Theory of Planned Behavior.

Study design

A cross-sectional study design was utilized.

Methods

Factors such as understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine, self-efficacy, cues to action, perceived barriers, perceived benefits, perceived side effects, perceived behavioral control, attitude, subjective norm, and intention to be vaccinated were analyzed by utilizing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Results

With 865 young Filipino adults who answered a self-administered survey, it was seen that Understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine has the highest direct significant effect on cues to action, followed by perceived barriers, and perceived benefits. Interestingly, the primary factor was Understanding COVID-19 vaccines which had an indirect significant effect on the intention to get vaccinated. This is because knowing what the vaccine is for, its effects, and the application would lead to the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the impact of being known to have the COVID-19 vaccine would lead to the intention to get vaccinated.

Conclusions

The findings of this study can be utilized especially by the government in developing strategies for encouraging people to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Finally, the model construct of the study can be applied to explore more factors that can affect the intention to be vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine and other vaccines people worldwide.

An exploration on COVID-19 vaccination motivation patterns from the perspective of the Chaxu culture in metropolis of China: A multi-center study

Objectives

Chaxugeju is a very special Chinese culture following a self-centered and outward expanding social network, which might be a significant culture factor for vaccination behavior. This study aimed to identify the motivation pattern in China, and paid special focus on socio-economic status (SES), region, and migration.

Methods

We used a latent class analysis, with a sample of 12,432 participants collected in China from April to June, to identify the COVID-19 vaccination motivation patterns. Multinomial logistic regression models were utilized to separately explore associations between SES, migration, region, and COVID-19 vaccination motivation patterns.

Results

Three COVID-19 vaccination motivation patterns were identified: Self-protection (41.9%), Trust and Self-protection (38.5%), and Trust and Differential Protection (19.6%). Participants with higher income were more likely to be Trust and Self-protection, and when income is more than 50,000 CNY per month, they are more likely to be self-protection. Professional/white collar were more likely to be Self-protection. Participants from Shenzhen were more likely to be Trust and Differential protection. The moderating effects of gender were found for income and region. Gender does not moderate the associations of occupation or migration and COVID-19 vaccination motivation patterns.

Conclusion

Three motivational patterns were identified in which the Trust & Differential Pattern followed the traditional self-family-community Chaxu circle. However, the Chaxu motivation pattern was not the dominant one which might be weakened by SES. Migration and Shenzhen preserved the traditional social network, keeping in the trust and differential pattern. All of these factors in various cultural contexts should be considered when promoting vaccines.

Social capital and willingness to participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials: an Italian case-control study

BACKGROUND

What leads healthy people to enter in a volunteer register for clinical trials? This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the decision to volunteer in clinical trials for a COVID-19 vaccine and social capital, in a sample of healthy volunteers in Italy. Since social capital is characterized by trust, reciprocity, and social and political participation, we claim that it is key in leading individuals to actively take action to protect public health, and to take a risk for the (potential) benefit not only of themselves but for the entire community.

METHODS

This study was conducted through the administration of a questionnaire to healthy volunteers registered for a phase 1 clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine in the Unit Research Centre of ASST-Monza, in September 2020. The primary purpose of a phase 1 study is to evaluate the safety of a new drug candidate before it proceeds to further clinical studies. To approximate a case-control study, we randomly matched the 318 respondents to healthy volunteers (cases) with 318 people randomly selected by Round 9 of the European Social Survey (controls), using three variables, which we considered to be associated with the decision to volunteer: gender, age, and education level. To execute this matching procedure, we used the "ccmatch" module in STATA.

RESULTS

The findings highlight the positive impact of social capital in the choice of healthy individuals to volunteer in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Controlling for possible confounding factors, some exemplary results show that people with a high level of general trust have a greater likelihood of volunteering compared to people with low trust (OR = 2.75, CI = 1.58-4.77); we also found that it is more probable that volunteers are people who have actively taken action to improve things compared with people who have not (for individuals who did three or more actions: OR = 7.54, CI = 4.10-13.86). People who reported voting (OR = 3.91, CI = 1.70-8.99) and participating in social activities more than other people of their age (OR = 2.89, CI = 1.82-4.60) showed a higher probability to volunteer.

CONCLUSIONS

Together with the adoption of urgent health measures in response to COVID-19, government policymakers should also promote social capital initiatives to encourage individuals to actively engage in actions aimed at protecting collective health. Our findings make an empirical contribution to the research on vaccines and its intersection with social behaviour, and they provide useful insights for policymakers to manage current and future disease outbreaks and to enhance the enrolment in vaccine trials.

Why not? Motivations for entering a volunteer register for clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

Backgrounds

Healthy volunteers play a key role in clinical trials and it is crucial to develop recruitment strategies that capitalise on their motivations and maximise their participation. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of finding motivated healthy volunteers for the development of new vaccines. Public registers represent a promising way to promote the participation of healthy volunteers in the research field, but their adoption is still limited. The current study aimed to explore the motivations of healthy volunteers to enrol in an Italian public register for clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic and their attitude toward participating in a phase 1 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The impacts of different enrolling interview modalities (in person, by phone, by mail) on motivation, understanding of information and trust in researchers were also investigated.

Methods

An online survey investigating experience with COVID-19, motivations to enrol, trust in researchers, political and healthcare authorities and pharmacological companies was presented to people applying as healthy volunteers in the public register for clinical trials at Phase 1 Unit Research Centre of ASST Monza, Italy, and considering to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Data were collected in June 2021.

Results

Altruistic motivations were the main driver for enrolling in the public register, while self-interested motivations were secondary. No gender differences were found. As for enrolling modalities, no differences emerged between in-person and interviews for motivation to enrol, understanding of information and trust in researchers. Email modality led to significantly lower volunteers’ satisfaction and understanding of information but similar trust in research.

Conclusions

This study supports the validity of different interview modalities (in person and by phone) for the enrolment of healthy volunteers for clinical trials and highlights the positive role of public registers for the recruitment procedures.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.

I dream of socializing, sports, and serenity: Imagining a positive future-vaccinated self is associated with better attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments are attempting to vaccinate a large proportion of their adult population against the virus. While many people hurried to receive the vaccine, vaccination rates then started stagnating and governments are searching for solutions to motivate remaining citizens to receive the vaccine. Previous studies show that imagining oneself in the future can motivate health prevention behaviors, but our study is the first to use a future selves paradigm to study vaccination motivators. In two mixed methods studies we examine the effects of imagining of a future-vaccinated self (FVS) on vaccine attitudes, where participants were asked to think about what their life would be like once they had received the COVID-19 vaccine. In Study 1 (n = 114), we coded the most important categories of FVS. Several FVS were identified and related to increased social and leisure activities, reduced negative emotion and societal constraints, possible side effects of the vaccine, and societal changes. In Study 2 (n = 113), we used a 2 × 2 design in which participants' reflections on their FVS were guided or open and visualized from a first- or third-person perspective. The guided condition produced greater acceptance of the vaccine, and the first-person perspective produced greater behavioral intentions to be vaccinated. We discuss the effectiveness of future selves interventions for promoting vaccination in different societal contexts.

Decision making in a clinical trial for a life-threatening illness: Therapeutic expectation, not misconception

Potential participants for clinical trials which aim to define treatments for life-threatening conditions are often extremely unwell. When exploring why individuals participate in clinical trials one common observation is a misplaced expectation of personal benefit - a therapeutic misconception. The care offered in some clinical trials is of a higher standard than is routinely available and this has led to criticism around the freedom of choice to enrol - structural coercion. We embedded an ethnographic study within a randomised controlled trial for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Gaborone, Botswana and Kampala, Uganda. We aimed to gain an understanding of decision-making around the trial and how this was impacted by the study design and broader social context. We conducted in-depth interviews with trial participants, surrogate decision makers and researchers, combined these with direct observations and analysed data using thematic analysis. Between January 2020 and June 2021 we interviewed 89 individuals. We found previous exposure to and awareness of clinical research was limited, as was understanding of the trial objectives and design. Through observations and engagement with healthcare facilities decision-makers were able to identify the trial as providing the best possible chance of survival. Hesitation and reluctance were mostly due to fear of lumbar punctures which was sometimes based on rumours but often based on tragic personal experience. Despite fear, and sometimes conviction that they would die, individuals agreed to consent, often against the wishes of family members. Reassurance and confidence came from trust in routine care staff and the research team but also from fellow participants and their surrogates. We argue that participants made informed decisions based on a therapeutic expectation from the trial and that rather than being the result of structural coercion this was an informed and voluntary choice.

How Were Healthcare Workers after Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination? A Study of the Emotional Side Effects of Vaccination

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines appear to be the only escape from the COVID-19 pandemic. As healthcare workers were among the first in society to be vaccinated, understanding their emotional status post-vaccination is fundamental to the promotion of COVID-19 vaccines among the rest of society. The aims of this study were to investigate the predictors of positive and negative emotions experienced by healthcare workers after being vaccinated and to understand whether those emotions were related to the modalities of vaccine promotion within the community. A cohort of 5790 Italian healthcare workers completed an original online survey regarding their experience with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and reported on a series of personal and environmental factors. The data obtained show that increased risk perception of COVID-19, vaccine confidence and receipt of greater quantities of information regarding vaccines are predictors of a more positive emotional state post-vaccination. Predictors of a more negative emotional state are older age, lower education, lower confidence and receipt of smaller quantities of information, in addition to neurotic personality traits and high risk perception of COVID-19. Importantly, vaccination promotion may be favoured by a happy emotional status after vaccination. This study can serve as a source of guidelines for the promotion of COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers and laypeople.

COVID-19 Vaccination: An Exploratory Study of the Motivations and Concerns Detailed in the Medical Records of a Regional Australian Population

Understanding motivations and concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccine uptake is important to reduce vaccine hesitancy and inform strategies to mitigate concerns and increase vaccine uptake. This study aimed to explore motivations and concerns associated with COVID-19 vaccination among adults seeking their first COVID-19 vaccine in a regional Australian community with low prevalence of COVID-19, who received a medical consult prior to vaccination. Medical records from consults were audited and the modified Framework Method was used to conduct qualitative content analysis of data, generating themes and overall core concepts related to motivations for COVID-19 vaccination and associated concerns. There were 102 people included in the study, 81% of whom were aged ≥60 years. Concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccination included five core concepts: 1. Perceived vaccine risks, 2. Perceived vaccine performance, 3. Uncertainty, 4. Autonomy, and 5. Fairness in access; and a further five core concepts were generated from motivations to seek vaccination: 1. Protection, 2. Occupational or facility responsibility or requirement, 3. Trust in primary healthcare physician, 4. Autonomy, and 5. Civic duty. These motivating factors and concerns can be used to inform strategies and education to increase vaccine uptake in ongoing and future vaccine rollouts.

Influence of rapid COVID-19 vaccine development on vaccine hesitancy

INTRODUCTION

In the race to deploy vaccines to prevent COVID-19, there is a need to understand factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. Secondary risk theory is a useful framework to explain this, accounting for concerns about vaccine efficacy and safety.

METHODS

During the first week of July, 2020, participants (N = 216) evaluated one of three different hypothetical vaccine scenarios describing an FDA-approved vaccine becoming available "next week," "in one year," or "in two years." Dependent variables were perceived vaccine efficacy, self-efficacy, perceived vaccine risk, and vaccination willingness. Covariates included vaccine conspiracy beliefs, science pessimism, media dependency, and perceived COVID-19 risk. Data analysis employed multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).

RESULTS

Perceived vaccine efficacy was lowest for the next-week vaccine (η2p = .045). Self-efficacy was higher for the two-year vaccine than the next-week vaccine (η2p = .029). Perceived vaccine risk was higher for the next-week vaccine than for the one-year vaccine (η2p = .032). Vaccination willingness did not differ among experimental treatments. In addition, vaccine conspiracy beliefs were negatively related to perceived vaccine efficacy (η2p = .142), self-efficacy (η2p = .031), and vaccination willingness (η2p = .143) and positively related to perceived vaccine risk (η2p = .216).

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine may have heightened public concerns over efficacy, availability, and safety. However, the current findings showed a general willingness to take even the most rapidly developed vaccine. Nonetheless, there remains a need to communicate publicly and transparently about vaccine efficacy and safety and work to reduce vaccine conspiracy beliefs.

COVID-19 Disparities and Vaccine Hesitancy in Black Americans: What Ethical Lessons Can Be Learned?

OBJECTIVE

This state of the art review focuses on bioethical questions and considerations from research findings and methodological issues, including design and recruitment of participants, in studies related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitation in Black individuals. Ethical concerns identified were applied to otolaryngology with recommendations for improving health inequities within subspecialties.

DATA SOURCES

An internet search through PubMed, CINAHL, and socINDEX was conducted to identify articles on COVID-19 vaccine hesitation among the Black population between 2020 and 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review approach was taken to search and analyze the research on this topic, which was coupled with expert analysis in identifying and classifying vital ethical considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common COVID-19 vaccine hesitation factors were related to the development of the vaccine, mistrust toward government agencies, and misconceptions about safety and side effects. These findings raised bioethical concerns around mistrust of information, low health literacy, insufficient numbers of Black participants in medical research, and the unique positions of health professionals as trusted sources. These bioethical considerations can be applied in otolaryngology and other health-related areas to aid the public in making informed medical decisions regarding treatments, which may reduce health inequalities among Black Americans and other racial and ethnic minority groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Addressing ethical questions by decreasing mistrust, tailoring information for specific populations, increasing minority representation in research, and using health professionals as primary sources for communicating health information and recommendations may improve relationships with Black communities and increase acceptance of new knowledge and therapies such as COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccination Behavior of People Living with HIV: The Mediating Role of Perceived Risk and Vaccination Intention

The COVID-19 vaccination behavior of people living with HIV (PLWH) was examined via a cross-sectional web-based survey of PLWH aged 18 years and older. The survey was conducted from l May to 20 June 2021. The survey included social demographic information; vaccination behavior (B); and questions related to perceived usefulness (PU), perceived risk (PR), subjective norms (SNs), perceived behavior control (PBC), and behavior intention (BI). The associations between the questionnaire variables and COVID-19 vaccination behavior were assessed by calculating the descriptive data, correlation analysis, and structural equation modeling. In total, 43.71% of the 350 eligible respondents had received a COVID-19 vaccine. The differences in COVID-19 vaccination behavior according to age, gender, religious belief, marital status, income, education level, and occupation were not obvious (p > 0.05). PU had a significantly negative effect on PR (p < 0.05). PR had a significantly negative effect on BI (p < 0.05). SNs had a significantly positive effect on BI (p < 0.05). BI had a significantly positive effect on B (p < 0.05). PR fully mediated the effects of PU on BI, BI fully mediated the effects of PR on B, and BI fully mediated the effects of SNs on B (p < 0.05). Health policymakers and medical workers should provide more information about the risks of vaccine application to improve the vaccination behavior of PLWH.

Participating in a vaccine trial for COVID-19 in Senegal: trust and information

This research aims to understand the level and determinants of people's willingness to participate in a vaccine trial for COVID-19 in Senegal. We conducted a telephone survey among a marginal quota sample of 607 people over 18 years of age. Only 44.3% of the participants wanted to participate in a vaccine trial for COVID-19, with females intending to participate more than males (AOR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.22-2.72]). Participants who intended to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (AOR = 6.48, 95% CI [4.12-10.4]) and who thought that being infected with the coronavirus would have a significant impact on their health (AOR = 2.34, 95% CI [1.57, 3.51]) were more likely to agree to take part in the COVID-19 vaccine trial. Confidence in the vaccine, health personnel, and the government in the fight against the pandemic are key factors in participants' willingness to participate in a vaccine trial in Senegal.