COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among reproductive-aged female tier 1A healthcare workers in a United States Medical Center

Association between COVID-19 vaccination and menstruation: a state of the science review

INTRODUCTION

Menstrual health is a key patient-reported outcome beyond its importance as a general indicator of health and fertility. However, menstrual function was not measured in the clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this review was to synthesise the existing literature on the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual health outcomes.

METHODS

A PubMed search to 31 October 2023 identified a total of 53 publications: 11 prospective cohort studies, 11 retrospective cohort studies or registry-based cohort studies, and 31 cross-sectional or retrospective case-control studies.

RESULTS

Identified studies were generally at moderate-to-high risk of bias due to retrospective design, interviewer bias, and failure to include a non-vaccinated control group. Nonetheless, the bulk of the literature demonstrates that COVID-19 vaccine is associated with temporary changes in menstrual characteristics (cycle length and flow) and menstrual pain. Follicular phase (at the time of vaccination) is associated with greater increases in cycle length. Evidence suggests temporary post-vaccine menstrual changes in adolescents, abnormal vaginal bleeding in postmenopausal individuals, and a potential protective effect of using hormonal contraception.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review we found evidence supporting an association between the COVID-19 vaccine and menstrual health outcomes. Given the importance of menstrual function to overall health, we recommend that all future vaccine trials include menstruation as a study outcome. Future vaccine studies should include rigorous assessment of the menstrual cycle as an outcome variable to limit sources of bias, identify biological mechanisms, and elucidate the impact of stress.

COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Infertility Posts on X: Insights on a Misinformation Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate misinformation surrounding infertility and the COVID-19 vaccine on X (formerly known as Twitter) by analyzing the prevalence and content of this misinformation across a sample of posts on X.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of posts on X (formerly known as tweets) from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset from July 2021 and November 2021. Included posts were from crucial time points in the COVID-19 vaccine discourse and contained at least one word related to COVID-19 vaccination and fertility. Posts were analyzed and categorized based on factuality, common words, and hashtags. Descriptive statistics on total followers, account verification status, and engagement were obtained. Differences between posts on X classified as factual and misinformation were examined using analysis of variance or χ2 tests. Sentiment analysis determined if post content was generally positive, neutral, or negative.

RESULTS

A total of 17,418 relevant posts on X were reviewed: 11,436 from timeframe 1 (July 2021) and 5982 from timeframe 2 (December 2021). Misinformation posts rose from 29.9% in July 2021 to 45.1% in November 2021. In both timeframes, accounts sharing factual information had more followers (p < 0.001), and verified users were more likely to share accurate posts (p ≤ 0.001). Factual and misinformation posts had similar engagement. Sentiment analysis identified that real posts were more positive and misinformation posts were more negative (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility is highly prevalent on X and threatens vaccine uptake in patients desiring future fertility. Accounts sharing factual information were likely to have more followers and be verified; therefore, verifying more physicians sharing accurate information is critical.

Sustaining the momentum for adult vaccination post-COVID-19 to leverage the global uptake of life-course immunisation: A scoping review and call to action

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic changed the adult vaccination landscape, possibly permanently. This review attempts to quantitate the magnitude of those changes.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for studies on adult / life-course vaccination between 1 January 2020 until 8 November 2022.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were identified and observations summarised as positive developments/impediments to life-course immunisation, and areas needing policy and structural reform. Unprecedented funding, international co-operation and technical advances led to COVID-19 vaccines authorised in record time. Investments in infrastructure and an expanded healthcare workforce streamlined vaccine delivery to adults. Constant media coverage and targeted messaging have improved health literacy. Conversely, the speed of vaccine development was perceived as a safety risk, and an 'infodemic' of misinformation propagated through social media negatively influenced vaccine uptake. Vaccine access and affordability remains inequitable among older adults and minority groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID pandemic led to an opportunity to permanently change policies, attitudes, and systems for vaccine delivery to adults to establish a global life-course approach to immunisation. This is a call for action to sustain the momentum triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing inequalities, improving health literacy and optimally using social media are critical to sustain adult vaccinations in post-COVID-19 era.

Causes and Effects of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Pregnant Women and its Association with Adverse Maternal, Placental, and Perinatal Outcomes

Populations identified to be severely affected by COVID-19, such as pregnant patients, require special consideration in vaccine counseling, access, and provider education. Maternal infection with COVID-19 poses a significant risk to the maternal-fetal dyad with known adverse placenta destruction [1-5]. Despite the widespread access and availability of vaccinations, vaccine hesitancy continues to persist and is highly prevalent in pregnant populations [6-9]. Addressing the multitude of social ecological factors surrounding vaccine hesitancy can aid in providing holistic counseling [10]. However, such factors are foremost shaped by maternal concern over possible fetal effects from vaccination. While changes in policy can help foster vaccine access and acceptance, increasing global provider education and incorporation of motivational interviewing skills are the first steps towards increasing maternal acceptance.

Characterizing predictors of COVID-19 vaccine refusal in an urban southern California jail population

BACKGROUND

Correctional populations have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, and many large outbreaks have occurred in jails and prisons. Vaccination is a key strategy to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 transmission in carceral settings. Although implementation can be challenging due to vaccine hesitancy and medical mistrust, correctional settings provide largely equitable healthcare access and present a unique opportunity to identify potential predictors of vaccine hesitancy independent of access issues.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed electronic health record data for individuals offered COVID-19 vaccination at the Los Angeles County Jail between January 19, 2021, and January 31, 2023, and used multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of COVID-19 vaccine refusal.

RESULTS

Of the 21,424 individuals offered COVID-19 vaccination, 2,060 (9.6 %) refused. Refusal was associated with male sex ([aOR] = 2.3, 95 % CI (1.9, 2.8)), age 18-34 ([aOR] = 1.2, 95 % CI (1.1, 1.4), referent group: age 45-54), Black race ([aOR] = 1.2, 95 % CI (1.1, 1.4)), reporting ever being houseless ([aOR] = 1.2, 95 % CI (1.1, 1.3)), and having a history of not receiving influenza vaccination while incarcerated ([aOR] = 2.4, 95 % CI (2.0, 2.8)). When analyzing male and female populations separately, male-specific trends reflected those seen in the overall population, whereas the only significant predictor of vaccine refusal in the female population was not receiving influenza vaccination while in custody ([aOR] = 6.5, 95 % CI (2.4, 17.6)).

CONCLUSION

Identifying predictors of vaccine refusal in correctional populations is an essential first step in the development and implementation of targeted interventions to mitigate vaccine hesitancy.

Vaccination, immunity, and the changing impact of COVID-19 on infant health

In utero exposure to COVID-19 infection may lead to large intergenerational health effects. The impact of infection exposure has likely evolved since the onset of the pandemic as new variants emerge, immunity from prior infection increases, vaccines become available, and vaccine hesitancy persists, such that when infection is experienced is as important as whether it is experienced. We examine the changing impact of COVID-19 infection on preterm birth and the moderating role of vaccination. We offer the first plausibly causal estimate of the impact of maternal COVID-19 infection by using population data with no selectivity, universal information on maternal COVID-19 infection, and linked sibling data. We then assess change in this impact from 2020 to 2023 and evaluate the protective role of COVID-19 vaccination on infant health. We find a substantial adverse effect of prenatal COVID-19 infection on the probability of preterm birth. The impact was large during the first 2 y of the pandemic but had fully disappeared by 2022. The harmful impact of COVID-19 infection disappeared almost a year earlier in zip codes with high vaccination rates, suggesting that vaccines might have prevented thousands of preterm births. The findings highlight the need to monitor the changing consequences of emerging infectious diseases over time and the importance of mitigation strategies to reduce the burden of infection on vulnerable populations.

Need for open data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant people in the Caribbean: a call to action

Pregnant people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a higher risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes compared with pregnant people without COVID-19. In 2021, large increases in maternal mortality were reported in Jamaica, almost half of which were attributable to COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination has been shown to reduce these risks, but low- and middle-income countries lack free, publicly available data, known as open data, on COVID-19 vaccine uptake for their pregnant populations. The objectives of this paper were to: review how high-income countries use open data to detect trends in COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant people and develop vaccination distribution strategies; outline barriers to making open data available for maternal COVID-19 vaccination in the Caribbean; and propose a multipronged strategy that would increase the availability of open data on maternal COVID-19 vaccination in the Caribbean. A multipronged strategy to fill the data void would involve: (i) utilizing existing Caribbean maternal immunization data collection entities; (ii) adapting digital software tools to establish maternal electronic immunization registries; and (iii) collaborating with local partners skilled in data analytics. Making open data available for COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant people in the Caribbean could offer substantial benefits, including the development of measurable maternal COVID-19 vaccination goals and the facilitation of vaccine decision-making discussions between providers and pregnant people.

CO-Sprout-A Pilot Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Randomised Trial of Broccoli Sprout Powder Supplementation for Pregnant Women with COVID-19 on the Duration of COVID-19-Associated Symptoms: Study Protocol

Since its discovery in late 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been estimated to be responsible for at least 769.3 million infections and over 6.95 million deaths. Despite significant global vaccination efforts, there are limited therapies that are considered safe and effective for use in the management of COVID-19 during pregnancy despite the common knowledge that pregnant patients have a much higher risk of adverse outcomes. A bioactive compound found in broccoli sprout-sulforaphane-is a potent inducer of phase-II detoxification enzymes promoting a series of potentially beneficial effects notably as an antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-viral. A pilot, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial is to be conducted in Melbourne, Australia, across both public and private hospital sectors. We will assess a commercially available broccoli sprout extract in pregnant women between 20+0 and 36+0 weeks gestation with SARS-CoV-2 infection to investigate (i) the duration of COVID-19 associated symptoms, (ii) maternal and neonatal outcomes, and (iii) biomarkers of infection and inflammation. We plan to enrol 60 outpatient women with COVID-19 irrespective of vaccination status diagnosed by PCR swab or RAT (rapid antigen test) within five days and randomised to 14 days of oral broccoli sprout extract (42 mg of sulforaphane daily) or identical microcrystalline cellulose placebo. The primary outcome of this pilot trial will be to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger trial investigating the duration (days) of COVID-19-associated symptoms using a broccoli sprout supplement for COVID-19-affected pregnancies. Pregnant patients remain an at-risk group for severe disease following infection with SARS-CoV-2 and currently unclear consequences for the offspring. Therefore, this study will assess feasibility of using a broccoli sprout supplement, whilst providing important safety data for the use of sulforaphane in pregnancy.

Association between community-level political affiliation and peripartum vaccination

BACKGROUND

Political affiliation has been associated with vaccine uptake, but whether this association holds in pregnancy, when individuals are recommended to receive multiple vaccinations, remains to be studied.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the association between community-level political affiliation and vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; influenza; and COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum individuals.

STUDY DESIGN

A survey was conducted about tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis and influenza vaccinations in early 2021, with a follow-up survey of COVID-19 vaccination among the same individuals at a tertiary care academic medical center in the Midwest. Geocoded residential addresses were linked at the census tract to the Environmental Systems Research Institute 2021 Market Potential Index, which ranks a community in comparison to the US national average. The exposure for this analysis was community-level political affiliation, defined by the Market Potential Index as very conservative, somewhat conservative, centrist, somewhat liberal, and very liberal (reference). The outcomes were self-reported vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; influenza; and COVID-19 in the peripartum period. Modified Poisson regression was used and adjusted for age, employment, trimester at assessment, and medical comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 438 assessed individuals, 37% lived in a community characterized by very liberal political affiliation, 11% as somewhat liberal, 18% as centrist, 12% as somewhat conservative, and 21% as very conservative. Overall, 72% and 58% of individuals reported receiving tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis and influenza vaccinations, respectively. Of the 279 individuals who responded to the follow-up survey, 53% reported receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Individuals living in a community characterized by very conservative political affiliation were less likely to report vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (64% vs 72%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.99); influenza (49% vs 58%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.00); and COVID-19 (35% vs 53%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.96) than those in a community characterized by very liberal political affiliation. Individuals living in a community characterized by centrist political affiliation were less likely to report vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (63% vs 72%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.99) and influenza (44% vs 58%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.92) than those in a community characterized by very liberal political affiliation.

CONCLUSION

Compared with pregnant and postpartum individuals living in communities characterized by very liberal political beliefs, those living in communities characterized by very conservative political beliefs were less likely to report vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; influenza; and COVID-19, and those in communities characterized by centrist political beliefs were less likely to report vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis and influenza. Increasing vaccine uptake in the peripartum period may need to consider engaging an individual's broader sociopolitical milieu.

Factors Associated With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Uptake Among Pregnant Women and Nonpregnant Women of Reproductive Age in Jamaica

Background

Despite high rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related maternal mortality, Jamaica currently has little data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of 192 reproductive-aged women in Jamaica from February 1 to 8, 2022. Participants were recruited from a convenience sample of patients, providers, and staff at a teaching hospital. We assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status and COVID-19-related medical mistrust (operationalized as vaccine confidence, government mistrust, and race-based mistrust). We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to test the association between vaccine uptake and pregnancy.

Results

Of 192 respondents, 72 (38%) were pregnant. Most (93%) were Black. Vaccine uptake was 35% in pregnant women versus 75% in nonpregnant women. Pregnant women were more likely to cite healthcare providers versus the government as trustworthy sources of COVID-19 vaccine information (65% vs 28%). Pregnancy, low vaccine confidence, and government mistrust were associated with a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.68 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .49-.95], aPR = 0.61 [95% CI, .40-.95], and aPR = 0.68 [95% CI, .52-.89], respectively). Race-based mistrust was not associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the final model.

Conclusions

Pregnancy, low vaccine confidence, and government mistrust were associated with a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination among reproductive-aged women in Jamaica. Future studies should evaluate the efficacy of strategies proven to improve maternal vaccination coverage, including standing "opt-out" vaccination orders and collaborative provider and patient-led educational videos tailored for pregnant individuals. Strategies that decouple vaccine messaging from government agencies also warrant evaluation.

Individual and Work-Related Characteristics Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Status among Ohio Nurses

Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine by nurses lags behind that of other health care professionals with minimal empirical evidence to understand this phenomenon. In this secondary analysis, we examined nurses' individual and work-related characteristics and their association with COVID-19 vaccination status. Alumni of three Ohio nursing colleges and members of a professional organization were invited to complete questionnaires from June through August 2021. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between nurse characteristics and vaccination status. Among 844 respondents, 754 (80.30%) had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Older age, having a bachelor's degree or higher, and working in critical care were associated with vaccination. Providing direct care for COVID-19 patients in the last 7 days and a higher perception of one's work being affected by COVID-19 were significantly associated with being vaccinated, whereas prior COVID-19 infection was inversely associated with vaccination status. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses is influenced by a host of factors related to virus knowledge, beliefs, and risk perceptions. Awareness of these factors can aid the development of interventions to increase nurses' acceptance of vaccines.

Factors associated with receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in Albania (February 2021-June 2022): secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. We investigated factors associated with two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among 1504 HCWs enrolled (19 February-7 May 2021) in a prospective COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness cohort in Albania through a secondary analysis.

Methods

We collected sociodemographic, occupational, health, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 vaccination data from all HCWs at enrollment. Vaccination status was assessed weekly through June 2022. A serum sample was collected from all participants at enrollment and tested for anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We analyzed HCWs characteristics and outcomes using multivariable logistic regression.

Findings

By 11 June 2022, 1337 (88.9%) HCWs had received two COVID-19 vaccine doses, of whom 255 (19.1%) received a booster. Factors significantly associated with receiving three doses (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 95% CIs) were being ≥35 years (35-44 years: 1.76 (1.05-2.97); 45-54 years: 3.11 (1.92-5.05); ≥55 years: 3.38 (2.04-5.59)) and vaccinated against influenza (1.78; 1.20-2.64). Booster dose receipt was lower among females (0.58; 0.41-0.81), previously infected (0.67; 0.48-0.93), nurses and midwives (0.31; 0.22-0.45), and support staff (0.19; 0.11-0.32). Overall 1076 (72%) were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive at enrollment. Nurses and midwifes (1.45; 1.05-2.02), support staff (1.57; 1.03-2.41), and HCWs performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) (1.40; 1.01-1.94) had higher odds of being seropositive, while smokers had reduced odds (0.55; 0.40-0.75).

Interpretation

In a large cohort of Albanian HCWs, COVID-19 vaccine booster dose uptake was very low, particularly among younger, female, and non-physician HCWs, despite evidence demonstrating the added benefit of boosters in preventing infection and severe disease. Reasons behind these disparities should be explored to develop targeted strategies in order to promote uptake in this critical population. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was higher among non-physicians and HCWs performing APGs. A better understanding of the factors contributing to these differences is needed to inform interventions that could reduce infections in the future.

Funding

This study was funded by the Task Force for Global Health (US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) cooperative agreement # NU51IP000873) and the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

Maternal COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Malaysian pregnant women: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused a global pandemic that resulted in devastating health, economic and social disruption. Pregnant mothers are susceptible to COVID-19 complications due to physiological and immunity changes in pregnancy. We aimed to assess the maternal vaccine acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

A multi-center study across four teaching hospitals in the Klang Valley, Malaysia was conducted between September 2021 and May 2022. A survey was conducted using a self-administered electronic questionnaire. The survey instruments included; (1) maternal perception and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination, (2) COVID-19 pregnancy-related anxiety, and 3) generalized anxiety disorder.

Results

The response rate was 96.6%, with a final number for analysis of 1,272. The majority of our women were Malays (89.5%), with a mean age (standard deviation, SD) of 32.2 (4.6). The maternal vaccine acceptance in our study was 77.1%. Household income (p < 0.001), employment status (p = 0.011), and health sector worker (p = 0.001) were independent predictors of maternal willingness to be vaccinated. COVID-19 infection to self or among social contact and greater COVID-19 pregnancy-related anxiety were associated with increased odds of accepting the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Women who rely on the internet and social media as a source of vaccine information were more likely to be receptive to vaccination (adjusted odd ratio, AOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.14-2.33). Strong correlations were observed between maternal vaccine acceptance and the positive perception of (1) vaccine information (p < 0.001), (2) protective effects of vaccine (p < 0.001), and (3) getting vaccinated as a societal responsibility (p < 0.001).

Discussion

The high maternal vaccine acceptance rate among urban pregnant women in Malaysia is most likely related to their high socio-economic status. Responsible use of the internet and social media, alongside appropriate counseling by health professionals, is essential in reducing vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women.

A Discrete Choice Analysis Comparing COVID-19 Vaccination Decisions for Children and Adults

IMPORTANCE

COVID-19 vaccination rates in the US remain below optimal levels. Patient preferences for different attributes of vaccine products and the vaccination experience can be important in determining vaccine uptake decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess preferences for attributes of adult and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination among US adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An online survey of a national panel of 1040 US adults was conducted in May and June 2021. A discrete choice analysis was used to measure the relative value of each attribute in the decision to choose a COVID-19 vaccination option for adults or children. Six attributes were used to described hypothetical vaccination options: vaccine effectiveness, mild side effects, rare adverse events, number of doses, time required for vaccination, and regulatory approval. Respondents chose between hypothetical vaccination profiles or no vaccination. Additional survey questions asked about vaccination beliefs, COVID-19 illness experience, COVID-19 risk factors, vaccination status, and opinions about the risk of COVID-19.

EXPOSURES

Respondents chose which vaccine profile they would prefer to receive for themselves (or no vaccination). Respondents then considered an identical set of profiles for a hypothetical child aged 0 to 17 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Relative value of vaccination-related attributes were estimated using Bayesian logit regression. Preference profiles for subgroups were estimated using latent class analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1040 adults (610 [59%] female; 379 participants [36%] with an age of 55 years and older years) responded to the survey. When asked about vaccination choices for themselves, participants indicated that vaccine effectiveness (95% vs 60%) was a significant attribute (β, 9.59 [95% CrI, 9.20-10.00] vs β, 0.41 [95% CrI, 0-0.80]). Respondents also preferred fewer rare adverse events (β, 6.35 [95% CrI, 5.74-6.86), fewer mild side effects (β, 5.49; 95% CrI, 5.12-5.87), 1 dose (β, 5.41; 95% CrI, 5.04-5.78), FDA approval (β, 6.01; 95% CrI, 5.64-6.41), and shorter waiting times (β, 5.67; 95% CrI, 4.87-6.48). Results were very similar when framing the question as adult or child vaccination, with slightly stronger preference for fewer rare adverse events for children. Latent class analysis revealed 4 groups of respondents: (1) individuals sensitive to safety and regulatory status, (2) individuals sensitive to convenience, (3) individuals who carefully considered all attributes in making their choices, and (4) individuals who rejected the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study of US adults, the identification of 4 distinct preference groups provides new information to guide communications to support vaccine decision making. In particular, the group that prioritize convenience (less time required for vaccination and fewer doses) may present an opportunity to create actionable strategies to increase vaccination uptake for both adult and pediatric populations.

Characterization of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Essential Workforce Members of a Large Safety Net Urban Medical Center

OBJECTIVES

Vaccine hesitancy among essential workers remains a significant public health challenge. We examined psychological constructs of perceived susceptibility, threat, and self-efficacy and their associations with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among a racially and ethnically diverse essential workforce population.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of essential workers from September-December 2020 at a large Los Angeles safety-net medical center as part of a program offering free COVID-19 serology testing. Program participants completed a standardized survey at the time of phlebotomy. Hierarchical logistic regression was utilized to determine factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

Among 1327 persons who had serology testing, 1235 (93%) completed the survey. Of these, 958 (78%) were healthcare workers. Based on expressed intent, 22% were vaccine-hesitant 78% were vaccine acceptors. In our multivariate model, vaccine hesitancy was associated with female gender [aOR = 2.09; 95% CI (1.44-3.05)], African American race [aOR = 4.32; (2.16-8.62)], LatinX ethnicity [aOR = 2.47; 95% CI (1.51-4.05)] and history of not/sometimes receiving influenza vaccination [aOR = 4.39; 95% CI (2.98-6.48)]. Compared to nurses, vaccine hesitancy was lower among physicians [aOR = 0.09; 95% CI (0.04-0.23)], non-nursing/non-physician healthcare workers [aOR = 0.55; 95% CI (0.33-0.92)], and non-healthcare care workers [aOR = 0.53; 95% CI (0.36-0.78)].

CONCLUSIONS

Among a racially/ethnically diverse group of safety net medical center essential workers, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with racial/ethnic minority groups, employment type, and prior influenza vaccination hesitancy. Interestingly, we found no association with the Health Belief Model construct measures of perceived susceptibility, threat, and self-efficacy. Psychological constructs not assessed may be drivers of vaccine hesitancy in our population.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes among pregnant and postpartum parents

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy poses increased risks from COVID-19, including hospitalization and premature delivery. Yet pregnant individuals are less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for delay or refusal among perinatal parents.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 1542 eligible parents who delivered between 2019 and 2021 were surveyed through the Ovia parenting app, which has a nationally representative user base. Adjusted and nationally weighted means were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression and survival models were used to examine uptake.

RESULTS

At least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was received by 70% of the parents. Those with a bachelor's or graduate degree were significantly more likely to have received a vaccine relative to those with some college or less (adjusted odds ratio for bachelor's degree, 1.854; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.90; adjusted odds ratio for graduate degree, 2.833; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-4.75). Parents living in rural areas were significantly less likely to have received a vaccine relative to those living in urban areas (adjusted odds ratio for small city, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.86; adjusted odds ratio for rural area, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.89); 56% (281/502) of unvaccinated parents considered that the vaccine "was too new." Among those pregnant in 2021, 44% (258/576) received at least 1 dose, and 34% (195/576) reported that pregnancy had "no impact" on their vaccine decision.

CONCLUSION

There was significant heterogeneity in vaccine uptake and attitudes toward vaccines during pregnancy by sociodemographics and over time. Public health experts need to consider and test more tailored approaches to reduce vaccine hesitancy in this population.

COVID Vaccine Information Sources Utilized by Female Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines excluded individuals with active reproductive needs (attempting to conceive, currently pregnant, and/or lactating). Women comprise three-quarters of healthcare workers in the United States-an occupational field among the first to receive the vaccine. Professional medical and government organizations have encouraged shared decision-making and access to vaccination among those with active reproductive needs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize the information sources used by pregnancy-capable healthcare workers for information about the COVID-19 vaccines and to compare the self-reported "most important" source by the respondents' active reproductive needs, if any.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a web-based national survey of female, US-based healthcare workers in January 2021. Recruitment was done using social media and subsequent sharing via word of mouth. We classified the respondents into 6 groups on the basis of self-reported reproductive needs as follows: (1) preventing pregnancy, (2) attempting pregnancy, (3) currently pregnant, (4) lactating, (5) attempting pregnancy and lactating, and (6) currently pregnant and lactating. We provided respondents with a list of information sources (friends, family, obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatrician, news, social media, government organizations, their employer, and "other") and asked respondents which source(s) they used when looking for information about the vaccine and their most important source. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the information sources and compared the endorsement of government organizations and obstetrician-gynecologists, which were the most important information source between reproductive groups, using the chi-square test. The effect size was calculated using Cramér V.

RESULTS

Our survey had 11,405 unique respondents: 5846 (51.3%) were preventing pregnancy, 955 (8.4%) were attempting pregnancy, 2196 (19.3%) were currently pregnant, 2250 (19.7%) were lactating, 67 (0.6%) were attempting pregnancy and lactating, and 91 (0.8%) were currently pregnant and lactating. The most endorsed information sources were government organizations (88.7%), employers (48.5%), obstetrician-gynecologists (44.9%), and social media (39.6%). Considering the most important information source, the distribution of respondents endorsing government organizations was different between reproductive groups (P<.001); it was most common among respondents preventing pregnancy (62.6%) and least common among those currently pregnant (31.5%). We observed an inverse pattern among the respondents endorsing an obstetrician-gynecologist as the most important source; the source was most common among currently pregnant respondents (51.4%) and least common among those preventing pregnancy (5.8%), P<.001. The differences in the endorsement of social media as an information source between groups were significant but had a small effect size.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare workers use government and professional medical organizations for information. Respondents attempting pregnancy and those pregnant and/or lactating are more likely to use social media and an obstetrician-gynecologist as information sources for vaccine decision-making. These data can inform public health messaging and counseling for clinicians.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Clinics in Pakistan: A Multicentric, Prospective, Survey-Based Study

This study aimed to assess the vaccination status and factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in the largest province of Pakistan. A multicentric, prospective, survey-based study using an interviewer-administered tool was conducted among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics between 1 December 2021 through 30 January 2022 across seven hospitals in Pakistan. The healthcare professionals providing care at the participating hospitals administered the survey. Four hundred and five pregnant women fully consented and completed the study. The majority of the study participants (70.6%, n = 286) were aged between 25 and 34 and had a previous successful pregnancy history. More than half of the study participants (56.0%, n = 227) did not receive COVID-19 vaccination at the time of data collection despite their family members (93.9%, n = 372) had already received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Among those who received COVID-19 vaccination (n = 173), vaccine efficacy, protection for the foetus, and risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalisation were the main driving factors for vaccine hesitancy. The majority of the unvaccinated women (77.8%, n = 182) had no intention of receiving the vaccine. However, more than two-thirds (85.7%, n = 342) consulted the doctor about COVID-19 vaccines, and most were recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccines by the doctors (80.7%, n = 280). Women were significantly more likely to be vaccinated if they had employment (odds ratio [OR] 4.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.31-8.64) compared with their counterparts who were homemakers, consulted their doctors (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.35), and if they did not have pregnancy-related issues (OR 6.02, 95% CI: 2.36-15.33). In this study, vaccine hesitancy was prevalent, and vaccine uptake was low among pregnant women. Education and employment did impact COVID vaccination uptake, emphasising the need for more targeted efforts to enhance the trust in vaccines.

Association between social vulnerability and COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and vaccination in pregnant and postpartum individuals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of community-level social vulnerability with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination among pregnant and postpartum individuals.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals. We performed a baseline survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from 03/22/21 to 04/02/21, and a follow-up survey on COVD-19 vaccination status 3- to 6-months later. The primary exposure was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SVI (Social Vulnerability Index), measured in quartiles. Higher SVI quartiles indicated greater community-level social vulnerability with the lowest quartile (quartile 1) as the referent group. The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey (uncertainty or refusal of the vaccine), and the secondary outcome was self-report of not being vaccinated (unvaccinated) for COVID-19 on the follow-up survey.

RESULTS

Of 456 assessed individuals, 46% reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey; and of 290 individuals (290/456, 64%) who completed the follow-up survey, 48% (140/290) were unvaccinated. The frequency of baseline vaccine hesitancy ranged from 25% in quartile 1 (low SVI) to 68% in quartile 4 (high SVI), and being unvaccinated at follow-up ranged from 29% in quartile 1 to 77% in quartile 4. As social vulnerability increased, the risk of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy at baseline increased (quartile 2 aRR (adjusted relative risk): 1.46; 95% CI:0.98 to 2.19; quartile 3 aRR: 1.86; 95% CI:1.28 to 2.71; and quartile 4 aRR: 2.24; 95% CI:1.56 to 3.21), as did the risk of being unvaccinated at follow-up (quartile 2 aRR: 1.00; 95% CI:0.66 to 1.51; quartile 3 aRR: 1.68; 95% CI:1.17 to 2.41; and quartile 4 aRR: 1.82; 95% CI:1.30 to 2.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant and postpartum individuals living in an area with higher community-level social vulnerability were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and subsequently to be unvaccinated at follow-up.

Safety-Related Outcomes of Novel mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the safety profile and demographic data for a cohort of pregnant individuals who received an mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study (with exposure matching) of individuals with active pregnancy who underwent immunization with a novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccine matched 1:2 with vaccinated age-matched female nonregnant controls was carried out. The primary outcome was defined as any vaccine-related complaints as defined in the original safety data. Secondary outcomes included specific complaints, COVID-19 screening test, and positive COVID-19 test.

RESULTS

Eighty-three vaccinated pregnant persons were age-matched with 166 female controls, all of whom were vaccinated between December 2020 and January, 2021. There was no difference in race or ethnicity between the groups. The mean body mass index of pregnant patients was lower than that of controls (26.1 vs. 29.2, p = 0.002). The frequency of complaints following vaccine administration was not different between pregnant and nonpregnant patients (18.1 vs. 16.9%, p = 0.201). Pregnant individuals were more likely to report fever (4.8 vs. 0.6%, p = 0.044) and gastrointestinal symptoms (4.8 vs. 0%, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Side effect profiles of COVID-19 vaccine administration at our institution were relatively similar between pregnant and nonpregnant individuals and no serious complications occurred in either group. As COVID-19 infection in pregnancy can have significant morbidity, our data support the continued use of the vaccine for pregnant patients.

KEY POINTS

· Pregnant and nonpregnant women had a similar frequency of complaints.. · No serious adverse outcomes were observed in either group.. · Pregnant women were more likely to report fever and gastrointestinal side effects which may reflect gestationally mediated physiological responses to immunization..

Decisions to Choose COVID-19 Vaccination by Health Care Workers in a Southern California Safety Net Medical Center Vary by Sociodemographic Factors

BACKGROUND

Limited information exists regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Our previous survey analyzed the reasons for HCWs' decisions to accept vaccination, suggesting that a "one-size fits all" approach may not suffice to increase vaccine uptake.

METHODS

Based on the vaccination acceptance group (acceptor, hesitant, refuser), we examined differences by sociodemographic factors (race/ethnicity, household income, education) from Likert Scale responses to fourteen influences affecting a decision to be vaccinated using the Kruskal-Wallis test and multinomial logistic regression with mutual adjustment for these sociodemographic factors, age, and sex.

RESULTS

Non-Hispanic White vaccine acceptors ranked lower confidence in preventing, withstanding, or treating COVID-19, while Non-Hispanic Blacks more highly regarded the motivation of a religious leader, colleague, or family member. Social media was ranked more influential among Non-Hispanic Asians. Acceptors with lower incomes ranked a job requirement influential; conversely, higher income vaccine hesitant HCWs highly rated this reason. More highly educated acceptors ranked being motivated by colleagues, family, and other HCWs higher. Adjustment weakened some but not all the differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic factors affect HCWs' decisions to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Our findings may help develop more focused and tailored strategies to improve vaccination acceptance.

Data-driven commentary on SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination, and fertility

A recent study by Wesselink et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022 Jan 20;kwac011. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac011. Online ahead of print) adds to the growing body of research finding that vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is safe for individuals either seeking pregnancy or who are pregnant. The study's authors found no effect of COVID-19 vaccination on fecundity in a population of individuals with no known infertility who were attempting conception. The finding reinforces the messaging of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine COVID-19 Task Force, the aim of which is to provide data-driven recommendations to individuals contemplating pregnancy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines became available, and with an increasing number of studies showing a heightened risk of severe disease during pregnancy, an important role of the Task Force is to encourage vaccination during the preconceptual window and in early pregnancy. The Task Force supports ongoing research to address gaps in knowledge about safe and effective therapies and preventive measures for individuals contemplating pregnancy and during pregnancy. Such research will help optimize care for reproductive-age individuals in the face of current and future health crises.

The effect of online meeting and health screening on business travel: A stated preference case study in Hong Kong

This study quantifies the effects of health control measures at the airport on passenger behaviour related to business travel. A stated preference survey was conducted over potential air travellers in Hong Kong in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Panel latent class models were estimated to understand passenger preference toward new travel requirements given the applicability of online meeting. Online meeting is applicable in cases where it is a good substitute of air travel and achieves the same outcomes of a trip, and inapplicable otherwise. Empirical results indicate that traveller subgroups are affected in different ways. When an online meeting is inapplicable, nearly 75% of the respondents prefer to travel for business and undertake health screenings. These passengers (identified as "captive" business travellers) perceive such measures necessary to lower health related risks during air travel. As such, they are willing to spend up to 21 to 38 min on the health control measures such as vaccination record requirements and test involving sample collection. When an online meeting is applicable, the share of "choice" business travellers is about 45%, among whom the attitudes towards health control measures become more averse. The average weighted willingness-to-pay for the time saved at health checkpoints increase significantly. The aviation industry thus faces a "double-hit" problem: operation costs will increase due to pandemic control measures, and the resultant inconvenience, extra time and costs further reduces travel demand. Unlike previous short pandemics, business travel is likely to suffer with an extended decline until the pandemic is fully controlled. These identified challenges call for financial and operational support to help the aviation industry reach a sustainable "new normal". The high value of time saved at check points also justifies investments that make the pandemic control and health measures efficient and smooth. Travellers' time spent on airport health control should be within 20 min to avoid substantial negative impacts on business travel demand.

Pregnant and Postpartum Patients' Views of COVID-19 Vaccination

Perinatal patients were faced with the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccination in the absence of clinical trial data on COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in pregnant and lactating patients. We used the Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences Impact Survey to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of perinatal patients. The mixed-method survey was distributed to all patients ≥ 18 years old who were pregnant between January 1st, 2020 – April 28, 2021 at a large academic health system in the upper Midwest. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed. Of the 1182 respondents who completed the survey, 647 answered at least one open-ended question. Among these 647 participants, 85 discussed COVID-19 vaccination and were secondarily analyzed. The responses illustrated a wide range of perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination, with many citing concerns over the consequences of maternal vaccination on their child. Others highlighted the lack of information surrounding COVID-19 vaccination in perinatal women. Respondents also discussed challenges discussing their vaccination status with their healthcare provider and the impact of family member’s vaccination decisions on postpartum support and childcare. The unprompted discussion of concerns about COVID-19 vaccination suggests this decision weighed on many participants, especially in the context of lack of information early in the pandemic. Our findings support the need for open discussion of perinatal patients with their providers on COVID-19 vaccination during the pregnancy and postpartum period.

COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people in the United States: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Pregnant people are at increased risk of COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality, and vaccination presents an important strategy for preventing negative outcomes. However, pregnant people were not included in vaccine trials, and there are limited data on COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the safety, immunogenicity, effectiveness, and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people in the United States.

DATA SOURCES

Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) were used to identify eligible studies published from January 1, 2020 through February 6, 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed empirical research conducted in the United States, publications in English, and research addressing 1 of the following topics: safety, immunogenicity, effectiveness, and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people.

METHODS

A narrative synthesis approach was used to synthesize findings. Critical appraisal was done using the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were identified. Most studies (n=24) reported the use of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant people; only 6 reported the Janssen vaccine. Of the 32 studies, 11 examined COVID-19 vaccine safety, 10 investigated immunogenicity and effectiveness, and 11 assessed vaccine acceptance among pregnant people. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most common adverse events. One case study reported immune thrombocytopenia. COVID-19 vaccination did not increase the risk of adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes compared with unvaccinated pregnant people. After COVID-19 vaccination, pregnant people had a robust immune response, and vaccinations conferred protective immunity to newborns through breast milk and placental transfer. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was low among pregnant people in the United States. African American race, Hispanic ethnicity, younger age, low education, previous refusal of the influenza vaccine, and lack of provider counseling were associated with low vaccine acceptance.

CONCLUSION

Peer-reviewed studies support COVID-19 vaccine safety and protective effects on pregnant people and their newborns. Future studies that use rigorous methodologies and include diverse populations are needed to confirm current findings. In addition, targeted and tailored strategies are needed to improve vaccine acceptance, especially among minorities.

Association of initial COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy with subsequent vaccination among pregnant and postpartum individuals

Objective

To examine the association between initial COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and subsequent vaccination among pregnant and postpartum individuals.

Design

Prospective cohort.

Setting

A Midwestern tertiary‐care academic medical center. Individuals completed a baseline vaccine hesitancy assessment from 22 March 2021 to 2 April 2021, with subsequent ascertainment of vaccination status at 3–6 months follow‐up.

Methods

We used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate the relative risk of vaccination by baseline vaccine hesitancy status, and then characteristics associated with vaccination.

Main outcome measures

Self‐report of COVID‐19 vaccination, and secondarily, consideration of COVID‐19 vaccination among those not vaccinated.

Results

Of 456 individuals (93% pregnant, 7% postpartum) initially surveyed, 290 individuals (64%; 23% pregnant, 77% postpartum) provided subsequent vaccination status (median = 17 weeks). Of these 290 individuals, 40% (116/290) reported COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy upon enrolment, of whom 52% reported subsequent vaccination at follow‐up. Few individuals transitioned during the study period from vaccine hesitant to vaccinated (10%); in comparison, 80% of those who were not vaccine hesitant were vaccinated at follow‐up (aRR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11–0.33). Among those who remained unvaccinated at follow‐up, 38% who were vaccine hesitant at baseline were considering vaccination, compared with 71% who were not vaccine hesitant (aRR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33–0.67). Individuals who were older, parous, employed and of higher educational attainment were more likely to be vaccinated, and those who identified as non‐Hispanic black, were Medicaid beneficiaries, and were still pregnant at follow‐up were less likely to be vaccinated.

Conclusions

COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy persisted over time in the peripartum period, and few individuals who reported hesitancy at baseline were later vaccinated. Interventions that address vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy are needed.

COVID‐19 vaccination hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals persists over time, and few of the individuals who reported hesitancy were later vaccinated.

Data-Driven Commentary on SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Vaccination, and Fertility

A recent study by Wesselink et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(8):1383-1395) adds to the growing body of research finding that vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is safe for individuals either seeking pregnancy or who are pregnant. The study's authors found no effect of COVID-19 vaccination on fecundity in a population of individuals with no known infertility who were attempting conception. The finding reinforces the messaging of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine COVID-19 Task Force, the aim of which is to provide data-driven recommendations to individuals contemplating pregnancy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines became available, and with an increasing number of studies showing a heightened risk of severe disease during pregnancy, an important role of the Task Force is to encourage vaccination during the preconceptual window and in early pregnancy. The Task Force supports ongoing research to address gaps in knowledge about safe and effective therapies and preventive measures for individuals contemplating pregnancy and during pregnancy. Such research will help optimize care for reproductive-age individuals in the face of current and future health crises.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italian healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As for other vaccines, vaccination hesitancy may be a determining factor in the success (or otherwise) of the COVID-19 immunization campaign in healthcare workers (HCWs).

AREAS COVERED

To estimate the proportion of HCWs in Italy who expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Determinants of vaccine compliance and options suggested by these studies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs were also analyzed. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and January 25, 2022. The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.9-20.9%). The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs investigated before and during the vaccination campaign was 18.2% (95%CI=12.8-24.2%) and 8.9% (95%CI=3.4-16.6%), respectively. That main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite strategies to achieve a greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be one of the most important measures that can guarantee the protection of HCWs and the patients they care for.

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers-A Review

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated vaccine have highlighted vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy among this group existed prior to the pandemic and particularly centered around influenza vaccination. Being a physician, having more advanced education, and previous vaccination habits are frequently associated with vaccine acceptance. The relationship between age and caring for patients on COVID-19 vaccination is unclear, with studies providing opposing results. Reasons for hesitancy include concerns about safety and efficacy, mistrust of government and institutions, waiting for more data, and feeling that personal rights are being infringed upon. Many of these reasons reflect previous attitudes about influenza vaccination as well as political beliefs and views of personal autonomy. Finally, several interventions to encourage vaccination have been studied, including education programs and non-monetary incentives with the most effective studies using a combination of methods.

Expert-Led Module Improves Non-STEM Undergraduate Perception of and Willingness to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines

As evidence mounted that existing prevention methods would be insufficient to end the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that vaccines would be critical to achieve and maintain reduced rates of infection. However, vaccine-hesitant sentiments have become widespread, particularly in populations with lower scientific literacy. The non-STEM major (called non-major) college students represent one such population who rely on one or more science classes to develop their scientific literacy and thus, become candidates of interest for the success of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign. As these students have fewer opportunities to learn how to identify reputable scientific sources or judge the validity of novel scientific findings, it is particularly important that these skills are included in the science courses offered to non-majors. Two concurrent non-major biology courses (N = 98) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in Spring 2021 completed Likert questionnaires with open-ended questions prior to and after an expert-led Vaccine Awareness educational intervention addressing vaccine-related concerns. In the module, experts gave presentations about COVID-19 related to microbiology, epidemiological factors, and professional experiences relating to COVID-19. Ten students agreed to participate in post-semester one-on-one interviews. Student interviews revealed that students perceived guest lecturers as providing more information and assurance. Questionnaire data showed an increase in student willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine as well as increased student perception of the COVID-19 vaccines as both safe and effective (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, p < 0.05). However, the questionnaire data revealed 10 of 98 students remained vaccine-resistant, and these students expressed insufficient research and side effects as leading vaccination concerns. Overall, we show expert-led modules can be effective in increasing non-majors willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Future research should explore the experiences of non-majors and guest lectures, particularly as they relate to vaccination and vaccine concerns.

Vaccine hesitancy among communities in ten countries in Asia, Africa, and South America during the COVID-19 pandemic

Vaccine hesitancy is considered one of the greatest threats to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. Lack of trust in vaccine benefits, along with concerns about side effects of the newly developed COVID-19 vaccine, might significantly contribute to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The objective of this study was to determine the level of vaccine hesitancy among communities in particular their belief in vaccination benefits and perceived risks of new vaccines. An online cross-sectional study was conducted in 10 countries in Asia, Africa, and South America from February to May 2021. Seven items from the WHO SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Scale were used to measure a construct of belief in vaccination benefit, and one item measured perceived riskiness of new vaccines. A logistic regression was used to determine which sociodemographic factors were associated with both vaccine hesitancy constructs. A total of 1,832 respondents were included in the final analysis of which 36.2% (range 5.6-52.2%) and 77.6% (range 38.3-91.2%) of them were classified as vaccine hesitant in terms of beliefs in vaccination benefits and concerns about new vaccines, respectively. Respondents from Pakistan had the highest vaccine hesitancy while those from Chile had the lowest. Being females, Muslim, having a non-healthcare-related job and not receiving a flu vaccination during the past 12 months were associated with poor beliefs of vaccination benefits. Those who were living in rural areas, Muslim, and those who did not received a flu vaccination during the past 12 months had relatively higher beliefs that new vaccines are riskier. High prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in some countries during the COVID-19 pandemic might hamper COVID-19 vaccination programs worldwide. Programs should be developed to promote vaccination in those sociodemographic groups with relatively high vaccine hesitancy.

Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines among Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mass vaccination against COVID-19 is essential to control the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines are now recommended during pregnancy to prevent adverse outcomes. With this review, we aimed to evaluate the evidence in the literature regarding the uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations among pregnant women. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, CINAHL, and medRxiv from inception to 23 March 2022. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the overall proportion of pregnant women vaccinated against COVID-19. We found 11 studies including 703,004 pregnant women. The overall proportion of pregnant women vaccinated against COVID-19 was 27.5% (95% CI: 18.8-37.0%). Predictors of COVID-19 vaccination uptake were older age, ethnicity, race, trust in COVID-19 vaccines, and fear of COVID-19 during pregnancy. Mistrust in the government, diagnosis of COVID-19 during pregnancy, and fears about the safety and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines were reasons for declining vaccination. The global COVID-19 vaccination prevalence in pregnant women is low. A large gap exists in the literature on the factors influencing the decision of pregnant women to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Targeted information campaigns are essential to increase vaccine literacy among pregnant women.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers and Trainees in Freetown, Sierra Leone: A Cross-Sectional Study

Despite having safe and efficacious vaccines against COVID-19, vaccine hesitancy is widespread. Although a trusted source of information, vaccine hesitancy has been reported among healthcare professionals, yet few studies have explored this phenomenon in sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals in Sierra Leone from January to March 2022. Measures included sociodemographic/health-related information and COVID-19-related concerns. From the responses, we constructed a hesitancy (VAX) score, with higher scores implying negative attitudes or unwillingness to vaccinate. Multivariate linear regression was used to access factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Overall, 592 participants submitted responses (67.2% female, mean age 29 years, 5.6% physicians/pharmacists, 44.3% medical students, 29.2% nurses, 20.9% nursing students). The mean VAX score was 43.27 ± 8.77, with 60.1% of respondents classified as vaccine hesitant (>50th percentile) and 13.8% as highly hesitant (>75th percentile). Worries about unforeseen future effects (76.3%), a preference for natural immunity (59.5%), and profiteering/mistrust of health authorities (53.1%) were the most common concerns. Being a medical student (β = 0.105, p = 0.011) and previously refusing a recommended vaccine (β = 0.177, p < 0.001) were predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Our findings call for addressing vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals as an essential component of strategies aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this setting.

No evidence of fetal defects or anti-syncytin-1 antibody induction following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination

The impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination on pregnancy and fertility has become a major topic of public interest. We investigated 2 of the most widely propagated claims to determine (1) whether COVID-19 mRNA vaccination of mice during early pregnancy is associated with an increased incidence of birth defects or growth abnormalities; and (2) whether COVID-19 mRNA-vaccinated human volunteers exhibit elevated levels of antibodies to the human placental protein syncytin-1. Using a mouse model, we found that intramuscular COVID-19 mRNA vaccination during early pregnancy at gestational age E7.5 did not lead to differences in fetal size by crown-rump length or weight at term, nor did we observe any gross birth defects. In contrast, injection of the TLR3 agonist and double-stranded RNA mimic polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid, or poly(I:C), impacted growth in utero leading to reduced fetal size. No overt maternal illness following either vaccination or poly(I:C) exposure was observed. We also found that term fetuses from these murine pregnancies vaccinated prior to the formation of the definitive placenta exhibit high circulating levels of anti-spike and anti-receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) consistent with maternal antibody status, indicating transplacental transfer in the later stages of pregnancy after early immunization. Finally, we did not detect increased levels of circulating anti-syncytin-1 antibodies in a cohort of COVID-19 vaccinated adults compared to unvaccinated adults by ELISA. Our findings contradict popular claims associating COVID-19 mRNA vaccination with infertility and adverse neonatal outcomes.

COVID-19 vaccination rates in an antenatal population: A survey of women's perceptions, factors influencing vaccine uptake and potential contributors to vaccine hesitancy

Background

Pregnant women are at increased risk for severe COVID‐19 and are a priority group for vaccination. The discrepancy in vaccination rates between pregnant and non‐pregnant cohorts is concerning.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the perceptions and intentions of pregnant women toward COVID‐19 vaccination and explored vaccine uptake and reasons for vaccine hesitancy.

Materials and method

A cross‐sectional exploratory design was performed evaluating pregnant women receiving care in two metropolitan maternity units in Western Australia. The main measurable outcomes included vaccination status, intention to be vaccinated, and reasons for delaying or declining vaccination.

Results

In total, 218 women participated. Of these, 122 (56%) had not received either dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine. Sixty (28%) claimed that vaccination was not discussed with them and 33 (15%) reported being dissuaded from vaccination by a healthcare practitioner. Compared to vaccinated women, those who had not accepted vaccination were less likely to have had vaccination discussed by maternity staff, less aware that pregnant women are a priority group, and less aware that pregnancy increased the risk of severe illness. Unvaccinated women were concerned about the side effects of the vaccine for their newborn and their own health, felt there was inadequate information on safety during pregnancy, and felt that a lack of community transmission in Western Australia reduced the necessity to be vaccinated.

Conclusion

Vaccine delay and hesitancy is common among pregnant women in Western Australia. Education of healthcare professionals and pregnant women on the recommendation for COVID‐19 vaccination in pregnancy is required.

Understanding national trends in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Canada: results from five sequential cross-sectional representative surveys spanning April 2020-March 2021

OBJECTIVE

To examine rates of vaccine hesitancy and their correlates among Canadian adults between April 2020 and March 2021.

DESIGN

Five sequential cross-sectional age, sex and province-weighted population-based samples who completed online surveys.

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 15 019 Canadians aged 18 years and over were recruited through a recognised polling firm (Leger Opinion). Respondents were 51.5% female with a mean age of 48.1 (SD 17.2) years (range 18-95 years) and predominantly white (80.8%).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of vaccine hesitancy over the five surveys (time points) and their sociodemographic, clinical and psychological correlates.

RESULTS

A total of 42.2% of respondents reported some degree of vaccine hesitancy, which was lowest during surveys 1 (April 2020) and 5 (March 2021) and highest during survey 3 (November 2020). Fully adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that women, those aged 50 and younger, non-white, those with high school education or less, and those with annual household incomes below the poverty line in Canada were significantly more likely to report vaccine hesitancy, as were essential and healthcare workers, parents of children under the age of 18 and those who do not get regular influenza vaccines. Endorsing prevention behaviours as important for reducing virus transmission and high COVID-19 health concerns were associated with 77% and 54% reduction in vaccine hesitancy, respectively. Having high personal financial concerns was associated with 1.33 times increased odds of vaccine hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the importance of targeting vaccine efforts to specific groups by emphasising the outsized health benefits compared with risks of vaccination. Future research should monitor changes in vaccine intentions and behaviour to better understand underlying factors.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccinations among a State-Wide Year-Long Surveillance Initiative in a Conservative Southern State

By the end of 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in over 54 million cases and more than 800,000 deaths in the United States, and over 350 million cases and more than 5 million deaths worldwide. The uniqueness and gravity of this pandemic have been reflected in the public health guidelines poorly received by a growing subset of the United States population. These poorly received guidelines, including vaccine receipt, are a highly complex psychosocial issue, and have impacted the successful prevention of disease spread. Given the intricate nature of this important barrier, any single statistical analysis methodologically fails to address all convolutions. Therefore, this study utilized different analytical approaches to understand vaccine motivations and population-level trends. With 12,975 surveys from a state-wide year-long surveillance initiative, we performed three robust statistical analyses to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: principal component analysis, survival analysis and spatial time series analysis. The analytic goal was to utilize complementary mathematical approaches to identify overlapping themes of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine trust in a highly conservative US state. The results indicate that vaccine receipt is influenced by the source of information and the population's trust in the science and approval process behind the vaccines. This multifaceted statistical approach allowed for methodologically rigorous results that public health professionals and policy makers can directly use to improve vaccine interventions.

Characterizing initial COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among pregnancy-capable healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination roll-out because of the high occupational risk. Vaccine trials excluded individuals who were trying to conceive and those who are pregnant and lactating, necessitating vaccine decision-making in the absence of data specific to this population.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the initial attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy-capable healthcare workers by reproductive status and occupational exposure.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a structured survey distributed via social media of US-based healthcare workers involved in patient care since March 2020 who were pregnancy-capable (biologic female sex without history of sterilization or hysterectomy) from January 8, 2021 to January 31, 2021. Participants were asked about their desire to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and their perceived safety of the COVID-19 vaccine using 5-point Likert items with 1 corresponding to "I strongly don't want the vaccine" or "very unsafe for me" and 5 corresponding to "I strongly want the vaccine" or "very safe for me." We categorized participants into the following 2 groups: (1) reproductive intent (preventing pregnancy vs attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, or currently lactating), and (2) perceived COVID-19 occupational risk (high vs low). We used descriptive statistics to characterize the respondents and their attitudes about the vaccine. Comparisons between reproductive and COVID-19 risk groups were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Our survey included 11,405 pregnancy-capable healthcare workers: 51.3% were preventing pregnancy (n=5846) and 48.7% (n=5559) were attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, and/or lactating. Most respondents (n=8394, 73.6%) had received a vaccine dose at the time of survey completion. Most participants strongly desired vaccination (75.3%) and very few were strongly averse (1.5%). Although the distribution of responses was significantly different between respondents preventing pregnancy and those attempting conception or were pregnant and/or lactating and also between respondents with a high occupational risk and those with a lower occupational risk of COVID-19, the effect sizes were small and the distribution was the same for each group (median, 5; interquartile range, 4-5).

CONCLUSION

Most of the healthcare workers desired vaccination. Negative feelings toward vaccination were uncommon but were significantly higher among those attempting pregnancy and those who are pregnant and lactating and also among those with a lower perceived occupational risk of contracting COVID-19, although the effect size was small. Understanding healthcare workers' attitudes toward vaccination may help guide interventions to improve vaccine education and uptake in the general population.

Multilevel determinants of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the United States: A rapid systematic review

Vaccine hesitancy is a challenge for the success and optimal implementation of COVID-19 immunization programs in the US. The objective of this study was to summarize multilevel determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention in the US to inform future intervention opportunities. To this end, we conducted a rapid systematic review by searching published articles via PubMed published by October 5, 2021, following the PRISMA guidelines. One hundred and six articles were included. According to nationally representative studies, the overall COVID-19 acceptance rate ranges from 53.6% to 84.4%. Individual (demographics, health history, behaviors and health beliefs), interpersonal (having a close friend/family member impacted by COVID-19), healthcare and societal level factors (healthcare provider recommendations, source/credential of COVID-19 related information, and COVID-19 related conspiracy theories) all contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the US. This study demonstrates that the acceptance to COVID-19 vaccines is influenced by various factors, particularly the role of healthcare providers in enhancing public intent to vaccination. Potential interventions to mitigate people's concerns over the vaccines and address vaccine-related conspiracy/misinformation from social media are also critical to encourage vaccine uptake in the US.

The impact of COVID-19 on hospital-based workers influenza vaccination uptake: A two-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at exploring 2020/2021 and 2019/2020 seasonal influenza vaccine uptake among healthcare and non-healthcare workers, hereafter hospital-based workers (HBWs); examining attitudes and motivations for uptake in the 2020/2021 season; and exploring the amount, types, and sources of information used by HBWs.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study. Socio-demographics, working profile, working area, and vaccination status data were collected. Motivations for vaccination uptake in the 2020/2021 season were also explored. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used.

RESULTS

Overall, uptake increased from 14.8% in 2019/2020 to 31.7% in 2020/2021. Male workers show greater vaccination uptake than their female counterparts (20.4% vs. 12.6% in 2019/2020, and 36.5% vs. 29.8% in 2020/2021). Uptake increased for healthcare assistants (+8.9%), administrative/managerial staff (+17%), nurses/midwives (+17.1%), non-medical graduate staff (+22.8%), and physicians (+33.2%), while it decreased slightly for resident physicians despite still being one of the most vaccinated categories (-4.6%). Main reasons for vaccination were the desire to protect patients (33.0%) and relatives (51.1%). Lastly, 60.8% of HBWs relied on institutional sources of information; the remainder relied on non-institutional sources including social media and chatting with colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination uptake increased in the 2020/21 season. Tailored educational interventions are required on the impact of influenza in care settings, vaccine efficacy, and vaccination safety. Investments in improving HBWs' reliance on institutional sources, and their ability to find them, are also needed.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Attitude toward Booster Doses among US Healthcare Workers

Vaccine reluctance among healthcare workers (HCW) can have widespread negative ramifications, including modeling behavior for the general population and challenges with maintaining a healthy workforce so we can respond to a resurgence of the pandemic. We previously reported that only one-third of HCW were willing to take the vaccine as soon as it became available prior to its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Here, we re-examine the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines among HCW several months after the vaccines have been made widely available. In this study, only 7.9% (n = 107) of respondents were hesitant to take the first or second dose of the vaccine. Younger age (18–40 years) and lower level of education attainment (GED or less) were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas self-identified Asian racial identity was associated with greater acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Among the vaccine-hesitant group, more respondents noted mistrust of regulatory authorities (45.3%), government (48.6%), and pharmaceutical companies (50%) than mistrust of doctors (25.4%). Nearly two-thirds of respondents were concerned that vaccination may be ineffective against new strains and booster doses may be required; however, vaccine-hesitant respondents’ acceptance of a hypothetical booster dose was only 14.3%. Overall, vaccine hesitancy was observed to have demographic predictors similar to those previously reported; the hesitancy of some US HCW to receive booster doses may reflect a general hesitancy to receive other forms of vaccination.

Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance, Hesitancy and Refusal among Employees of a Safety Net California County Health System with an Early and Aggressive Vaccination Program: Results from a Cross-Sectional Survey

Since health professionals provide frontline care to COVID-19 patients, information on vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers is needed. We developed and implemented an anonymous internet-based cross-sectional survey with direct solicitation among employees of a safety net health system. Items queried demographic and health-related characteristics, experience with and knowledge of COVID-19, and determinants of decisions to vaccinate. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance groups (acceptors, hesitant, refusers) were defined; an adapted version of the WHO vaccine hesitancy scale was included. The survey demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92 for vaccine hesitancy scale; 0.93 for determinants). General linear and logistic regression methods examined factors which were univariately associated with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine acceptance, respectively. Multivariable models were constructed with stepwise model-building procedures. Race/ethnicity, marital status, job classification, immunocompromised status, flu vaccination and childhood vaccination opinions independently predicted hesitancy scale scores. Gender, education, job classification and BMI independently predicted acceptance, hesitancy, and refusal groups. Among hesitant employees, uncertainty was reflected in reports of motivating factors influencing their indecision. Despite a strong employee-support environment and job protection, respondents reported physical and mental health effects. The appreciation of varied reasons for refusing vaccination should lead to culturally sensitive interventions to increase vaccination rates amongst healthcare workers.