U.S. public support and opposition to vaccination mandates in K-12 education in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

Perceptions of vaccine requirements among students at four Pennsylvania universities

BACKGROUND

University students have a unique perspective on vaccination because of their recent or perhaps newly acquired autonomy and ability to make health-related decisions. The development of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2020 and its implementation over the past few years was accompanied by much information and communication about vaccination requirements and safety, which may have affected students' perspectives on vaccination and vaccine requirements more broadly. This analysis describes current vaccine policies at several universities and evaluates student respondents' perceptions of and agreement with university vaccine requirements.

METHODS

A 32-question survey was administered to undergraduate, graduate, and professional students attending four Pennsylvania universities in March-May 2023; 2,223 students responded to the survey. The survey included questions about vaccine requirements, agreement with vaccine requirements, and knowledge of selected vaccines. These responses were compared with the actual vaccine requirements and recommendations of the four universities.

RESULTS

Most respondents agreed with university vaccine requirements, though knowledge of those requirements varied, with many unaware of which were required. University requirement of the COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with being vaccinated for COVID-19. However, while the requirement itself was not related to vaccine uptake, respondents' perception of a requirement was. Respondents were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccination and influenza vaccination if they believed their university required those vaccines. Respondents were more likely to approve of a vaccine requirement if their perception was that their university required that vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, student respondents were supportive of their institution's vaccine requirements, but many lacked information about those requirements. Clear messaging using multiple modes of communication about vaccines and vaccine requirements may improve students' knowledge of vaccines and result in a corresponding increase in vaccine uptake.

Putting Health care Where the Kids Are: US Public Attitudes About School-Based Health Centers

BACKGROUND

School-based health centers (SBHCs) have been shown to offer substantial benefits to students but we know little about how the public thinks about them. We sought to assess US public attitudes about SBHCs and the provision of 7 health service lines-primary care, preventive care, vaccinations, preventive dental care, preventive vision care, mental health care, and nutrition counseling.

METHODS

We administered a national online survey (N = 4196) of US adults using Lucid, a large, internet-based, opt-in panel to assess public attitudes about SBHCs as well as 7 commonly offered health services in SBHCs. We then used t-tests and weighted linear regression models to carry out our study objectives.

RESULTS

Unadjusted analysis revealed that more than 2 in 3 respondents supported SBHCs in general as well as the provision of all health services in SBHCs. Regression analysis indicated that ideology, partisanship, and trust in public school principals served as consistent predictors of attitudes when controlling for demographic and health characteristics. The provision of vaccinations stood out as particularly controversial. Subanalysis of parents found even higher levels of support as well as a more subdued role of ideology and partisanship.

CONCLUSIONS

The US public broadly supports the provision of health services in SBHCs. Our results should inform policymakers, advocates, and providers seeking to improve access to health care among school-aged children, particularly for underserved populations. Increasing knowledge about SBHCs and providing stable funding should be a priority. In the immediate future, SBHCs may offer an important buffer against ongoing Medicaid disenrollments.

COVID-19 Mitigation in a K-12 School Setting: A Case Study of Avenues: The World School in New York City

In this case study, we describe a well-resourced private school in New York City that implemented COVID-19 mitigation measures based on public health expert guidance and the lessons learned from this process. Avenues opened in New York City in 2012 and has since expanded, becoming Avenues: The World School, with campuses in São Paulo, Brazil; Shenzhen, China; the Silicon Valley, California; and online. It offers education at 16 grade levels: 2 early learning years, followed by a prekindergarten through grade 12. We describe the mitigation measures that Avenues implemented on its New York campus. We compare COVID-19 case prevalence at the school with COVID-19 case positivity in New York City, as reported by the New York State Department of Health. We also compare the school's indoor air quality to ambient indoor air quality measures reported in the literature. The school's mitigation measures successfully reduced the prevalence of COVID-19 among its students, staff, and faculty. The school also established a consistently high level of indoor air quality safety through various ventilation mechanisms, designed to reduce common indoor air pollutants. The school received positive parent and community feedback on the policies and procedures it established, with many parents commenting on the high level of trust and quality of communication established by the school. The successful reopening provides useful data for school closure and reopening standards to prepare for future pandemic and epidemic events.

US public opinion about reproductive health care in school-based health centers

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine public support for the provision of seven reproductive health services in school-based health centers, including pregnancy testing, over-the-counter contraceptives, prescription (Rx) contraceptives, sexually transmitted disease testing, sexually transmitted disease treatment, gynecological examinations, sexual violence counseling, and an index measure combining all services.

STUDY DESIGN

We administered a large national online survey (N = 4196, response rate 31%) of US adults using Lucid, a large, internet-based, opt-in panel to assess public attitudes about offering sexual and reproductive health services in school-based health centers. We then used t tests and weighted linear regression models to carry out our study objectives.

RESULTS

Unadjusted analysis revealed that 60% of respondents supported the provision of all reproductive health services (combined) at school-based health centers. Regression analysis based on the index measure suggested that individuals identifying as Trump voters (p-value = 0.00) or conservatives (p-value = 0.00) reported the lowest support, while those identifying as liberal (p-value = 0.00) reported the highest support, controlling for demographic and health characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents overwhelmingly support the provision of reproductive health services at school-based health centers, including pregnancy testing, over-the-counter contraceptives, prescription contraceptives, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and sexual violence counseling.

IMPLICATIONS

Adolescence is an important stage for sexual maturation, and access to appropriate sexual and reproductive health services can support healthy development into adulthood. Findings suggest that most respondents support the provision of reproductive health services at school-based health centers while there are important factors that influence public support.

Assessing past and future COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States in light of federal policy changes

Vaccinations provide an effective solution against the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Using a national survey (n = 3958), this study explored vaccination hesitancy for various COVID-19 vaccines and boosters, including the newly released annual vaccine for fall and winter 2023-2024. It also assessed support for federal funding for COVID-19 testing, vaccinations, and treatment. Consistent correlates of past vaccination refusal were perceptions of vaccines as safe and important, previous COVID-19 tests, concern about COVID-19, having voted for President Trump, higher religiosity, being liberal, trust in health institutions, health insurance status, and education. Other predictors showed inconsistent results across the various stages. Drivers of vaccination refusal were concerns about vaccine safety and side effects, perceived lack of information, and having previously contracted COVID-19. Intention to vaccinate was associated with concerns about COVID-19, liberalism, and trust in health institutions. Other factors were intermittently significant. We found consistent support for federal funding for those concerned about COVID-19, those concerned about the effectiveness of existing vaccines, those with trust in health institutions, those who thought vaccines are important, women, and those with lower levels of education. Opposition came from conservatives and Trump voters.

Assessing vaccine hesitancy and support for vaccination requirements for pets and potential Spillovers from humans

BACKGROUND

Growing vaccination hesitancy is well-document among humans. However, we know very little about vaccination hesitancy for pets as well as whether the two phenomena are interconnected. Moreover, support for pet vaccination requirements also remain underassessed.

METHODS

We fielded a large, national survey (N = 3,958) on August 18 and August 19, 2023, to assess U.S. public opinion about the vaccination status of dogs (rabies, canine parvovirus, canine distemper, canine influenza, and Lyme disease) and cats (rabies, feline panleukopenia (parvo), feline herpesvirus-1, feline chlamydia, and feline Bordetella) in the United States. We also queried respondents about their support for vaccination requirements for the 10 diseases.

RESULTS

We find that the vast majority of cats and dogs are vaccinated. However, a substantial minority of pets is not, particularly for cats and for non-core vaccines. We find that attitudinal measures of human and pet vaccine hesitancy are closely related to each other. Moreover, they are strong predictors of vaccine behavior. Measures of vaccine hesitancy are also strong predictors of support for vaccination mandates. Common measures used to assess human vaccine hesitancy showed inconsistent effects. However, pet vaccinations appear to be less politically polarizing.

CONCLUSION

The high correlation between pet and human measures raises the stake for public health efforts to improve attitudes about vaccines and vaccination rates across the board. Strong support for vaccination requirements should encourage policymakers to explore policy change. Moreover, veterinarians and their associations should consider expanding the number of core vaccinations.