Incentives for Immunity - Strategies for Increasing Covid-19 Vaccine Uptake

Enhancing COVID-19 Vaccination Awareness and Uptake in the Post-PHEIC Era: A Narrative Review of Physician-Level and System-Level Strategies

Following the World Health Organization's declaration that the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), COVID-19 remains an ongoing threat to human health and healthcare systems. Vaccination plays a crucial role in reducing the disease's incidence, mitigating its severity, and limiting transmission, contributing to long-term public health resilience. However, incomplete vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy exist. This narrative review investigates strategies at the system and physician levels aimed at sustaining awareness and uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in a post-PHEIC era. Through an examination of the existing literature, this review explores the effectiveness of diverse approaches utilized by healthcare systems and individual providers. These approaches address every component of the 5C model of vaccine hesitancy: confidence, complacency, constraints/convenience, calculation, and collective responsibility. Physician-level approaches include appropriate message framing, persuasive communication containing safety and personal/social benefit information, sharing of personal stories, creating a safe space for discussion, harnessing co-administration with annual influenza vaccines, and use of decision aids and visual messages. System-level approaches include messaging, mass media for health communication, on-site vaccine availability, pharmacist delivery, healthcare protocol integration, incentives, and chatbot use.

Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination

Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.

Reimbursing incarcerated individuals for participation in research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Little is known about global practices regarding the provision of reimbursement for the participation of people who are incarcerated in research. To determine current practices related to the reimbursement of incarcerated populations for research, we aimed to describe international variations in practice across countries and carceral environments to help inform the development of more consistent and equitable practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline, and Embase, and conducted a grey literature search for English- and French-language articles published until September 30, 2022. All studies evaluating any carceral-based research were included if recruitment of incarcerated participants occurred inside any non-juvenile carceral setting; we excluded studies if recruitment occurred exclusively following release. Where studies failed to indicate the presence or absence of reimbursement, we assumed none was provided.

RESULTS

A total of 4,328 unique articles were identified, 2,765 were eligible for full text review, and 426 were included. Of these, 295 (69%) did not offer reimbursement to incarcerated individuals. A minority (n = 13; 4%) included reasons explaining the absence of reimbursement, primarily government-level policies (n = 7). Among the 131 (31%) studies that provided reimbursement, the most common form was monetary compensation (n = 122; 93%); five studies (4%) offered possible reduced sentencing. Reimbursement ranged between $3-610 USD in total and 14 studies (11%) explained the reason behind the reimbursements, primarily researchers' discretion (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of research conducted to date in carceral settings globally has not reimbursed incarcerated participants. Increased transparency regarding reimbursement (or lack thereof) is needed as part of all carceral research and advocacy efforts are required to change policies prohibiting reimbursement of incarcerated individuals. Future work is needed to co-create international standards for the equitable reimbursement of incarcerated populations in research, incorporating the voices of people with lived and living experience of incarceration.

COVID-19 Vaccination Among Diverse Population Groups in the Northern Governorates of Iraq

Objectives: The present study was carried out to investigate COVID-19 vaccination coverage among populations of internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, and host communities in northern Iraq and the related underlying factors. Methods: Through a cross-sectional study conducted in five governorates in April-May 2022, 4,564 individuals were surveyed. Data were collected through an adapted questionnaire designed to gather data on participants. Results: 4,564 subjects were included (59.55% were 19-45 years old; 54.51% male). 50.48% of the participants (51.49% of host communities, 48.83% of IDPs, and 45.87% of refugees) had been vaccinated with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 40.84% of participants (42.28% of host communities, 35.75% of IDPs, and 36.14% of refugees) had been vaccinated by two doses, and 1.56% (1.65% of host communities, 0.93% of IDPs, and 1.46% of refugees) were vaccinated with three doses. Conclusion: Sociodemographic factors including age, gender, education, occupation, and nationality could affect vaccination coverage. Moreover, higher acceptance rate of vaccination is associated with belief in vaccine safety and effectiveness and trust in the ability of the vaccine to prevent complications.

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

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

Measuring the importance of influencing factor for COVID-19 vaccination intention in China

Background

Vaccination is considered an effective approach to deter the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, vaccine hesitancy is a common issue that makes immunization programs more challenging. To promote vaccination in a targeted and efficient way, this study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool for evaluating the importance of influencing factors related to COVID-19 vaccination intention in China, and to examine the demographic differences.

Methods

In study 1, we developed a Factor Importance Evaluation Questionnaire (FIEQ) based on semi-structured interview results and used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to explore its factor structure. In study 2, we verified the four-factor structure of FIEQ by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We then administered FIEQ to Chinese participants and conducted a student t-test and analysis of variance to examine the differences in the importance evaluation of factors based on gender and educational level.

Results

In study 1, we developed a four-factor construct and retained 20 items after EFA (N = 577), with acceptable reliability (alpha = 0.87) and validity. In study 2, we found that the model fit was good (χ2 = 748.03 (162), p < 0.001, GFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.048, AGFI = 0.934), and reliability was acceptable (alpha = 0.730) (N = 1,496). No gender difference was found in factor importance. However, individuals with different educational levels reported significantly different importance evaluations of three factors, including perceived benefits and social norms (F = 3.786, p = 0.005), perceived influences from reference groups (F = 17.449, p < 0.001), and perceived risks (F = 2.508, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

This study developed and validated FIEQ for measuring the importance of influencing factors related to the COVID-19 vaccination intention in Chinese participants. Moreover, our findings suggest that the educational level may play a role in how individuals evaluate the importance of factors. This study provides insights into the concerns that individuals have regarding vaccination and offers potentially effective and targeted strategies for promoting COVID-19 vaccination.

Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination among incarcerated persons in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, June-July 2021

OBJECTIVE

To understand the attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination and trusted sources of vaccination-related information among persons incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

METHODS

From June-July 2021, persons incarcerated across 122 facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons were invited to participate in a survey asking their reasons for receiving or declining COVID-19 vaccination and the information sources they relied upon to make these decisions. Descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 130,789 incarcerated persons with known vaccination status were invited to participate in the survey. At the time of survey, 78,496 (62%) were fully vaccinated; 3,128 (3%) were partially vaccinated and scheduled to complete their second dose, and 44,394 (35%) had declined either a first or second dose. 7,474 (9.5%) of the fully vaccinated group and 2,302 (4.4%) of the group declining either a first or second dose chose to participate in the survey; an overall survey return rate of 7.6% (n = 9,905). Among vaccinated respondents, the most common reason given for accepting vaccination was to protect their health (n = 5,689; 76.1%). Individuals who declined vaccination cited concerns about vaccine side effects (n = 1,304; 56.6%), mistrust of the vaccine (n = 1,256; 54.6%), and vaccine safety concerns (n = 1,252; 54.4%). Among those who declined, 21.2% (n = 489) reported that they would choose to be vaccinated if the vaccine was offered again. Those who declined also reported that additional information from outside organizations (n = 1128; 49.0%), receiving information regarding vaccine safety (n = 841; 36.5%), and/or speaking with a trusted medical advisor (n = 565; 24.5%) may influence their decision to be vaccinated in the future.

CONCLUSION

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, it is important to increase vaccine confidence in prisons, jails, and detention facilities to reduce transmission and severe health outcomes. These survey findings can inform the design of potential interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in these settings.

Incentivizing COVID-19 vaccination among racial/ethnic minority adults in the United States: $209 per dose could convince the hesitant

BACKGROUND

More than two years into the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, it remains unclear whether financial incentives can reduce vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake among key unvaccinated populations. This study estimated the willingness of racial/ethnic minority adults in the United States to accept financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination and the minimum amount needed to vaccinate a sufficiently high percentage of this population.

METHODS

From August through September 2021, we conducted an online survey of 367 Black/African American and Hispanic patients, age ≥ 18 years, from 8 community health centers in Rhode Island. Contingent valuation questions assessed respondents' willingness-to-accept (WTA) incentives for COVID-19 vaccination using random-starting-points and iterative incentive offers of $5 to $50 per dose. Ordered logistic regression models examined associations between respondent characteristics and WTA. Predictive probabilities were modeled using both within-survey range and out-of-survey range incentive offer amounts and compared against vaccination thresholds needed to reach herd immunity.

RESULTS

Less than 30% of unvaccinated survey respondents were WTA an incentive of $50/dose for vaccination. Models using out-of-survey incentive offer amounts greater than $50 suggested that 85% of respondents would agree $140/dose (95% CI: $43-$236) could convince other people to accept vaccination, while $209/dose (95% CI: -$91-$509) would be needed for 85% of respondents to accept vaccination themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this analysis may inform the design of incentive schemes aiming to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in vaccine and booster uptake, which will continue to be important as new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerge.

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences

Financial incentives to encourage healthy and prosocial behaviours often trigger initial behavioural change1-11, but a large academic literature warns against using them12-16. Critics warn that financial incentives can crowd out prosocial motivations and reduce perceived safety and trust, thereby reducing healthy behaviours when no payments are offered and eroding morals more generally17-24. Here we report findings from a large-scale, pre-registered study in Sweden that causally measures the unintended consequences of offering financial incentives for taking the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We use a unique combination of random exposure to financial incentives, population-wide administrative vaccination records and rich survey data. We find no negative consequences of financial incentives; we can reject even small negative impacts of offering financial incentives on future vaccination uptake, morals, trust and perceived safety. In a complementary study, we find that informing US residents about the existence of state incentive programmes also has no negative consequences. Our findings inform not only the academic debate on financial incentives for behaviour change but also policy-makers who consider using financial incentives to change behaviour.

Combining Influenza and COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Strategy to Improve Vaccination Uptake Necessary for Managing the Health Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines has been significantly low. Therefore, it is questionable whether combining the COVID-19 booster vaccines with influenza vaccines can increase the population’s interest in taking such vaccines and manage the health pandemic effectively. Methodology: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a synthesis of the findings and summary of a total of 30 research articles based on the topic, ‘combining influenza and COVID-19 booster vaccination strategy’ was undertaken. The research articles were identified from three databases, namely, PubMed, Cochran Library, and Google Scholar using specific keywords and inclusion criteria. However, research articles that were not peer-reviewed and not published in English were excluded from the systematic review and meta-analysis. The average risk ratio of the intervention group getting a combination of COVID-19 booster and influenza vaccines from the samples of the included studies was 0.78 with regard to a 95% CI. Such risk ratio is based on the null hypothesis of the current study that combining COVID-19 booster and influenza vaccines can increase the uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. On the other hand, the heterogeneity between such studies was I2 = 35%, while the statistical significance of their findings occurred at p < 0.05. The average p-value of the included research studies was p = 0.62 with the proportion of studies with significant p-values being 63.33% which is equivalent to 19 out of 30 studies. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected in more than half of the studies. Results: A synthesis of the chosen research articles revealed that when influenza and COVID-19 booster vaccines are combined, there is potential for an increase in the uptake of the latter, mainly because many populations have already been accustomed to taking influenza vaccines on an annual basis. Conclusions: In this way, through such findings, medical health experts can make informed decisions to increase the population’s willingness to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccines.

Perceived COVID-19 vaccine attributes associated with early adoption among adults in rural Indiana

2019 Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination rates in the United States have plateaued in specific populations, including rural areas. To improve COVID-19 vaccination rates and to encourage early vaccine uptake in future pandemics, this study aimed to examine vaccine attributes associated with early adoption. Data are from an anonymous online survey of adults using targeted Facebook pages of rural southern Indiana towns in January and February 2021 (n = 286). The diffusion of innovation theory states that the rate of adoption of a product in a specific population is explained by five perceived attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, observability, complexity and trialability. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association of Diffusion of Innovation theory attributes of the COVID-19 vaccine on early adoption. Results indicated that trialability [odds ratio (OR) = 3.307; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.964-5.571; P < 0.001], relative advantage (OR = 2.890; 95% CI = 1.789-4.667; P < 0.001) and compatibility (OR = 2.606; 95% CI = 1.476-4.601; P < 0.001) showed significant independent associations with early adoption. Furthermore, age and political ideology were significant moderators of complexity and relative advantage, respectfully. Health education strategies for early vaccine uptake should focus on building trust in vaccine safety, increasing short-term benefits of vaccination and promoting relatability to personal values.

Community voices on factors influencing COVID-19 concerns and health decisions among racial and ethnic minorities in the school setting

Racial and ethnic minority communities have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, but the uptake of COVID-19 mitigation strategies like vaccination and testing have been slower in these populations. With the continued spread of COVID-19 while in-person learning is a priority, school-aged youth and their caregivers must make health-related decisions daily to ensure health at school. It is critical to understand factors associated with COVID-related health decisions such as vaccination, testing, and other health behaviors (e.g., wearing masks, hand washing). Community-engaged campaigns are necessary to overcome barriers to these health behaviors and promote health equity. The aim of this study was to examine COVID-19-related concerns and influences on health decisions in middle and high schools serving primarily racial and ethnic minority, low-income families. Seven focus groups were conducted with school staff, parents, and students (aged 16 years and older). Qualitative data were analyzed using a general inductive approach. Factors related to COVID-19 concerns and health decisions centered on (1) vaccine hesitancy, (2) testing hesitancy, (3) developmental stage (i.e., ability to engage in health behaviors based on developmental factors like age), (4) cultural and family traditions and beliefs, (5) compatibility of policies and places with recommended health behaviors, (6) reliability of information, and (7) perceived risk. We explore sub-themes in further detail. It is important to understand the community's level of concern and identify factors that influence COVID-19 medical decision making to better address disparities in COVID-19 testing and vaccination uptake.

Can financial incentives and other nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations among the vaccine hesitant? A randomized trial

Despite rapid initial uptake, COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States stalled within a few months of widespread rollout in 2021. In response, many state and local governments, employers and health systems used public health messaging, financial incentives and creative scheduling tools to increase vaccine uptake. Although these approaches drew on evidence from influenza and other vaccination efforts, they were largely untested in the context of SARS-CoV-2. In mid-2021, months after vaccines were widely available, we evaluated vaccination intentions and vaccine uptake using a randomized control trial. To do this, we recruited unvaccinated members of a Medicaid managed care plan in California (n = 2,701) and randomly assigned them to different public health messages, $10 or $50 financial incentives for vaccination, a simple vaccination appointment scheduler, or control. While messages increased vaccination intentions, none of the interventions increased vaccination rates. Estimates for financial incentives rule out even relatively small increases in vaccination rates. Small financial incentives and other behavioral nudges do not meaningfully increase COVID-19 vaccination rates amongst the vaccine hesitant.

Strengthened belief in vaccine effectiveness predicted increased COVID-19 vaccination intention and behaviour: Results from a nationally representative longitudinal survey of U.S. adults from July 2020 to April/May 2021

Vaccine hesitancy remains a major barrier to ending the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (U.S.) and an important target for communication interventions. Using longitudinal survey data, we examined whether baseline levels and changes in beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccines predicted change in vaccination intention/behaviour. Repeated measures were collected from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (n = 665) in July 2020 and April/June 2021. Linear regressions associated change in COVID-19 vaccination intention/behaviour with changes in beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccines' safety, effectiveness in protecting others from infection, and effectiveness in protecting oneself from infection. Changes in beliefs from T1 to T2 were significantly associated with change in vaccination outcomes for all belief types (safety B = 0.39, SE = 0.07; effectiveness for self B = 0.38, SE = 0.09; effectiveness for others B = 0.43, SE = 0.07). Cross-lagged models suggested a reciprocal causal relationship between pro-vaccine beliefs and vaccination intention/behaviour: Intention to get vaccinated at T1 predicted strengthened safety and effectiveness beliefs at T2. T1 effectiveness beliefs predicted T2 vaccination intention/behaviour, though T1 safety beliefs did not. Communication interventions highlighting the protective benefits of COVID-19 vaccines may be particularly successful in reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Use of financial incentives to increase adult vaccination coverage: A narrative review of lessons learned from COVID-19 and other adult vaccination efforts

To encourage COVID-19 vaccination, governments have offered a wide range of incentives to their populations ranging from cash to cows. Often these programs were rolled out at scale before assessing potential effectiveness. To inform future policy, we conducted a narrative review to understand the evidence base informing these programs and the extent to which they are effective. While we found evidence on cash transfers increasing both the coverage and intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and other adult vaccines, improvements in coverage were limited. With mixed evidence, lottery programs did not appear to have a consistent meaningful impact on vaccination for COVID-19, and no evidence was identified on the positive effects of other non-cash incentives for COVID-19 or other adult vaccines. We conclude that the impact of cash transfers in incentivizing adult vaccination is marginal and their effectiveness in addressing vaccine hesitancy remains inconclusive.

Impact of incentives on COVID-19 vaccination; A systematic review

Introduction

Although vaccination is the most effective way to limit and overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, a considerable fraction of them are not intended to get vaccinated. This study aims to investigate the existing research evidence and evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of all incentives provided for increasing the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

A systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and SCOPUS from 2020 until October 10, 2021, was conducted on experimental studies evaluating the effects of incentives including cash, lottery voucher, and persuasive messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention and uptake. The study selection process, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) checklist.

Results

Twenty-four records were included in the qualitative analysis. Most of the included studies assessed the effect of financial incentives. In 14 studies (58%) the assessed outcome was vaccination uptake and in nine (37.5%) others it was vaccination intention. One study considered self-reported vaccination status as the outcome. This study shows that high financial incentives and the Vax-a-million lottery are attributed to a higher vaccination rate, while the low amount of financial incentives, other lotteries, and persuasive messages have small or non-significant effects.

Conclusion

Paying a considerable amount of cash and Vax-a-million lottery are attributed to a higher vaccination. Nevertheless, there is a controversy over the effect of other incentives including other lotteries, low amount of cash, and messages on vaccination. It is noteworthy that, inconsistency and imprecision of included studies should be considered.

Association between COVID-19 vaccination rates and the Australian 'Million Dollar Vax' competition: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between financial incentives from entry into a vaccine competition with the probability of vaccination for COVID-19.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study with adjustment for covariates using logistic regression.

SETTING

October and November 2021, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

2375 respondents of the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of respondents who had any vaccination, a first dose only, or second dose after the competition opened.

RESULTS

Those who entered the competition were 2.27 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.99) times more likely to be vaccinated after the competition opened on 1 October than those who did not enter-an increase in the probability of having any dose of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.10 to 0.21) percentage points. This increase was mostly driven by those receiving second doses. Entrants were 2.39 (95% CI 1.80 to 3.17) times more likely to receive their second dose after the competition opened.

CONCLUSIONS

Those who entered the Million Dollar Vax competition were more likely to have a vaccination after the competition opened compared with those who did not enter the competition, with this effect dominated by those receiving second doses.

South African University Staff and Students’ Perspectives, Preferences, and Drivers of Hesitancy Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines: A Multi-Methods Study

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to the success of vaccination programmes currently being implemented. Concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness and vaccine-related adverse events are potential barriers to vaccination; however, it remains unclear whether tailored messaging and vaccination programmes can influence uptake. Understanding the preferences of key groups, including students, could guide the implementation of youth-targeted COVID-19 vaccination programmes, ensuring optimal uptake. This study examined university staff and students’ perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods approach was used—an online convenience sample survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE)—targeting staff and students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The survey and DCE were available for staff and students, and data were collected from 18 November to 24 December 2021. The survey captured demographic characteristics as well as attitudes and perspectives of COVID-19 and available vaccines using modified Likert rating questions adapted from previously used tools. The DCE was embedded within the survey tool and varied critical COVID-19 vaccine programme characteristics to calculate relative utilities (preferences) and determine trade-offs. A total of 1836 staff and students participated in the study (541 staff, 1262 students, 33 undisclosed). A total of 1145 (62%) respondents reported that they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination against COVID-19 was less prevalent among students compared with staff (79% of staff vs. 57% of students). The vaccine’s effectiveness (22%), and its safety (21%), ranked as the two dominant reasons for not getting vaccinated. These concerns were also evident from the DCE, with staff and students being significantly influenced by vaccine effectiveness, with participants preferring highly effective vaccines (90% effective) as compared with those listed as being 70% or 50% effective (β = −3.72, 95% CI = −4.39 to −3.04); this characteristic had the strongest effect on preferences of any attribute. The frequency of vaccination doses was also found to have a significant effect on preferences with participants deriving less utility from choice alternatives requiring two initial vaccine doses compared with one dose (β = −1.00, 95% CI = −1.42 to −0.58) or annual boosters compared with none (β = −2.35, 95% CI = −2.85 to −1.86). Notably, an incentive of ZAR 350 (USD 23.28) did have a positive utility (β = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.53) as compared with no incentive. Given the slow take-up of vaccination among youth in South Africa, this study offers valuable insights into the factors that drive hesitancy among this population. Concerns have been raised around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, although there remains a predilection for efficient services. Respondents were not enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take boosters, and this has played out in the roll-out data. Financial incentives may increase both the uptake of the initial dose of vaccines and see a more favourable response to subsequent boosters. Universities should consider tailored messaging regarding vaccine effectiveness and facilitate access to vaccines, to align services with the stated preferences of staff and students.

Primary care professionals' support for Covid-19 vaccination mandates: Findings from a US national survey

Healthcare organizations have been early adopters of Covid-19 vaccine mandates as a strategy to end the pandemic. We sought to evaluate support for such mandates among pediatric primary care professionals (PCPs) in the United States. In February-March 2021, we conducted a national online survey of 1,047 PCPs (71% physicians). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess correlates of PCPs' support for Covid-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers. Most PCPs supported Covid-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers (83%). PCPs were more likely to support mandates if they perceived health care workers to be at highest risk of getting Covid-19 compared to other worker types (8 percentage points, p < 0.01). PCPs were also more likely to support mandates if their clinic recommended or required vaccination (11 percentage points and 20 percentage points respectively, both p < 0.01). However, PCPs were less likely to support mandates if their clinic offered incentives to vaccinate (10 percentage points, p < 0.05). Clinic recommendations and requirements for Covid-19 vaccination may increase support for mandates. Incentives may decrease support, perhaps by creating the perception that viable alternatives to mandates exist.

Unmet Healthcare Needs among College Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for System-Wide and Structural Changes for Service Delivery

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, college students faced health disparities in addition to a negative burden on academic performance; however, little is reported in the literature regarding healthcare utilization. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among consenting college student participants aged 18 or older from a Hispanic-serving institution. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze demographic characteristics and the types of healthcare services needed by such characteristics. Logistic regression was used to adjust for noted sex differences in associations between reporting limited healthcare services and types of healthcare services. Results: The study population of 223 participants was mostly Hispanic/Latino (65%) and female (73%). Of the population, 11% reported they could not obtain needed healthcare services, with time being reported as the most common reason. Significant associations were found between seeking general healthcare services/routine screening, seeking mental health services, and seeking sexual health services with reporting limited healthcare services, with sex-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of 1.90 (95% CI: 1.08, 3.36), 3.21 (95% CI: 1.44, 4.15), and 2.58 (95% CI: 1.05, 6.35), respectively. Conclusions: Availability and inability to obtain health services may exacerbate college student health disparities. Targeted interventions are needed in the population to mitigate the potential burdens of unmet healthcare needs, particularly among minority college students.

Introducing Incentives and Reducing Disincentives in Enhancing Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation

Despite the effectiveness of solid organ transplantation, progress to close the gap between donor organs and demand remains slow. An organ shortage increases the waiting time for transplant and involves significant costs including patient morbidity and mortality. Against the background of a low deceased organ donation rate, this article discusses the option of introducing incentives and removing disincentives to deceased organ donation. Perspectives from ethics, general public opinion, and the health care profession are examined to ensure a comprehensive appraisal and illustrate different facets of opinion on this complex area. Special cultural and psychosocial considerations in Asia, including the family based consent model, are discussed.

Effect of Text Message Reminders and Vaccine Reservations on Adherence to a Health System COVID-19 Vaccination Policy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Many organizations implemented COVID-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic, but the best way to increase adherence to these policies is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if behavioral nudges delivered through text messages could accelerate adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted within Ascension health system from October 11 to November 8, 2021. Participants included health system employees in the Midwest or South US who were not adherent with the vaccination policy 1 month before its deadline. Data were analyzed from November 17, 2021, to February 25, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to control or to receive a text message intervention that stated a vaccine had been reserved for the participant, with a scheduled date for vaccination within a 2-week period. Participants could reschedule to a different date within the period or upload a copy of their vaccination card. Follow-up text message reminders were sent the day before and the day of the appointment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was adherence to the health system's vaccination policy during the 2-week intervention. Secondary outcomes included time to vaccination during a 4-week follow-up period.

RESULTS

The sample included 2000 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.4 [12.3] years; 1724 [86.2%] women), with 1000 participants randomized to the control group and 1000 participants randomized to the intervention group. Overall, there were 164 Hispanic participants (8.2%), 46 non-Hispanic Asian participants (2.3%), 202 non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1%), and 1418 non-Hispanic White participants (70.9%). By the end of the 2-week intervention, 363 participants in the text message nudge group (36.3%) and 318 participants in the control group (31.8%) were adherent with the vaccination policy, representing a significant increase of 4.9 (95% CI, 0.8 to 9.1) percentage points in adjusted analyses comparing the nudge group with the control group (P = .02). Among participants who became adherent by the end of the 4-week follow-up period, the text message nudge significantly reduced time to adherence by a mean of 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.7) days (P < .001) and a median of 5.0 (95% CI, 2.5 to 7.7) days (P < .001) compared with the control group. At 4 weeks, overall vaccination adherence was no longer different between groups (control: 477 participants [47.7%]; intervention: 472 participants [47.2%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial found that a behavioral nudge delivered through text messages accelerated adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy but did change overall adherence by the time of the policy deadline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037201.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy and resistance for COVID-19 vaccines

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has had various degrees of success in different countries. Achieving high levels of vaccine coverage is key to responding to and mitigating the impact of the pandemic on health and aged care systems and the community. In many countries, vaccine hesitancy, resistance, and refusal are emerging as significant barriers to immunisation uptake and the relaxation of policies that limit everyday life. Vaccine hesitancy/ resistance/ refusal is complex and multi-faceted. Individuals and groups have diverse and often multiple reasons for delaying or refusing vaccination. These reasons include: social determinants of health, convenience, ease of availability and access, health literacy understandability and clarity of information, judgements around risk versus benefit, notions of collective versus individual responsibility, trust or mistrust of authority or healthcare, and personal or group beliefs, customs, or ideologies. Published evidence suggests that targeting and adapting interventions to particular population groups, contexts, and specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy/ resistance may enhance the effectiveness of interventions. While evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake is limited and generally unable to underpin any specific strategy, multi-pronged interventions are promising. In many settings, mandating vaccination, particularly for those working in health or high risk/ transmission industries, has been implemented or debated by Governments, decision-makers, and health authorities. While mandatory vaccination is effective for seasonal influenza uptake amongst healthcare workers, this evidence may not be appropriately transferred to the context of COVID-19. Financial or other incentives for addressing vaccine hesitancy may have limited effectiveness with much evidence for benefit appearing to have been translated across from other public/preventive health issues such as smoking cessation. Multicomponent, dialogue-based (i.e., communication) interventions are effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy/resistance. Multicomponent interventions that encompasses the following might be effective: (i) targeting specific groups such as unvaccinated/under-vaccinated groups or healthcare workers, (ii) increasing vaccine knowledge and awareness, (iii) enhanced access and convenience of vaccination, (iv) mandating vaccination or implementing sanctions against non-vaccination, (v) engaging religious and community leaders, (vi) embedding new vaccine knowledge and evidence in routine health practices and procedures, and (vii) addressing mistrust and improving trust in healthcare providers and institutions via genuine engagement and dialogue. It is universally important that healthcare professionals and representative groups, as often highly trusted sources of health guidance, should be closely involved in policymaker and health authority decisions regarding the establishment and implementation of vaccine recommendations and interventions to address vaccine hesitancy.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccine passports: a cross-sectional conjoint experiment in Japan

OBJECTIVES

While the development of vaccines against the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) brought hope of establishing herd immunity and ending the global pandemic, vaccine hesitancy can hinder the progress towards herd immunity. In this study, by analysing the data collected when citizens undergo public health restrictions due to the pandemic, we assess the determinants of vaccine hesitancy, reasons for hesitation and potential effectiveness of vaccine passports used to relax public health restrictions on mitigating vaccine hesitancy.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study, longitudinal study and conjoint experimental design.

SETTING

An online survey conducted in Japan in July 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

A demographically representative sample of 5000 Japanese adults aged 20-74.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

COVID-19 vaccination intention RESULTS: We found that about 30% of respondents did not intend to get vaccinated or had not yet decided, with major reasons for vaccine hesitancy relating to concerns about the safety and side effects of the vaccine. In line with previous findings, younger age, lower socioeconomic status, and psychological and behavioural factors such as weaker COVID-19 fear were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Easing of public health restrictions such as travel, wearing face masks and dining out at night was associated with an increase in vaccine acceptance by 4%-10%. Moreover, we found that more than 90% of respondents who intended to get vaccinated actually received it while smaller proportions among those undecided and unwilling to get vaccinated did so.

CONCLUSION

With a major concern about vaccine safety and side effects, interventions to mitigate against these may help to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, when citizens are imposed with restrictions, vaccine passports that increase their freedom may be helpful to increase vaccination rates.

Vaccination and vacci-notions: Understanding the barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccine uptake during the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to place an inordinate burden on U.S. population health, and vaccination is the most powerful tool for curbing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, saving lives, and promoting economic recovery. However, much of the U.S. population remains hesitant to get vaccinated against COVID-19, despite having access to these life-saving vaccines. This study's objective was to examine the demographic characteristics, experiences, and disease- and vaccine-related risk perceptions that influence an individual's decision to adhere to vaccine recommendations for COVID-19.

Study design

A telephone survey was performed with a convenience sample of 57 participants.

Methods

This mixed-methods study collected quantitative and qualitative responses about seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccine intentions to compare vaccine hesitancies between a novel and routine vaccine.

Results

The primary facilitators of uptake for the COVID-19 vaccine were personal protection, protecting others, preserving public health, and general vaccine confidence. Concerns about vaccine side effects, concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine trials, misinformation about vaccination, personal aversions to the vaccine, general distrust in vaccination, complacency, and distrust in government were the primary barriers to vaccine uptake. Race was also associated with COVID-19 vaccine intentions.

Conclusions

The results of this research have been condensed into four recommendations designed to optimize public health messaging around the COVID-19 vaccine and maximize future vaccine uptake.

Treating Workers as Essential Too: An Ethical Framework for Public Health Interventions to Prevent and Control COVID-19 Infections among Meat-processing Facility Workers and Their Communities in the United States

Meat is a multi-billion-dollar industry that relies on people performing risky physical work inside meat-processing facilities over long shifts in close proximity. These workers are socially disempowered, and many are members of groups beset by historic and ongoing structural discrimination. The combination of working conditions and worker characteristics facilitate the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Workers have been expected to put their health and lives at risk during the pandemic because of government and industry pressures to keep this "essential industry" producing. Numerous interventions can significantly reduce the risks to workers and their communities; however, the industry's implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent. With a focus on the U.S. context, this paper offers an ethical framework for infection prevention and control recommendations grounded in public health values of health and safety, interdependence and solidarity, and health equity and justice, with particular attention to considerations of reciprocity, equitable burden sharing, harm reduction, and health promotion. Meat-processing workers are owed an approach that protects their health relative to the risks of harms to them, their families, and their communities. Sacrifices from businesses benefitting financially from essential industry status are ethically warranted and should acknowledge the risks assumed by workers in the context of existing structural inequities.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability and Financial Incentives among Unhoused People in Los Angeles County: a Three-Stage Field Survey

Unhoused people have higher COVID-19 mortality and lower vaccine uptake than housed community members. Understanding vaccine hesitancy among unhoused people is key for developing programs that address their unique needs. A three-round, rapid, field-based survey was conducted to describe attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Round 1 assessed vaccine brand preference, round 2 assessed intention to accept a financial incentive for vaccination, and round 3 measured vaccine uptake and assessed reasons for vaccine readiness during implementation of a financial incentive program. A total of 5177 individuals were approached at COVID-19 vaccination events for unhoused people in Los Angeles County from May through November 2021. Analyses included 4949 individuals: 3636 (73.5%) unsheltered and 1313 (26.5%) sheltered. Per self-report, 2008 (40.6%) were already vaccinated, 1732 (35%) wanted to get vaccinated, 359 (7.3%) were not yet ready, and 850 (17.2%) did not want to get vaccinated. Brand preference was evenly split among participants (Moderna 31.0%, J&J 35.5%, either 33.5%, p = 0.74). Interest in a financial incentive differed between those who were not yet ready and those who did not want to get vaccinated (43.2% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.01). After implementing a financial incentive program, 97.4% of participants who indicated interest in vaccination were vaccinated that day; the financial incentive was the most cited reason for vaccine readiness (n = 731, 56%). This study demonstrated the utility of an iterative, field-based assessment for program implementation during the rapidly evolving pandemic. Personal engagement, a variety of brand choices, and financial incentives could be important for improving vaccine uptake among unhoused people.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Female Foreign Domestic Workers in Hong Kong: A Cross-Sectional Quantitative Survey

Globally, minority groups and non-citizens may not be sufficiently included in the COVID-19 vaccine coverage. This study seeks to understand determinants of vaccine uptake among female foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Hong Kong. We conducted a cross-sectional study of female FDWs (n = 581) from June to August 2021. Respondents completed an online survey obtaining sociodemographic, employment, and health status information. Based upon the socio-ecological model, we obtained individual, interpersonal, and socio-structural factors that may be associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. At the individual level, agreeing that taking COVID-19 vaccines can contribute to COVID-19 control in Hong Kong (OR 6.11, 95% CI 2.27–16.43) was associated with increased vaccine uptake, while being worried of severe side-effects from vaccination (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16–0.55) was associated with decreased uptake. At the interpersonal level, those being encouraged by their employer (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06–3.95) and family members (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.17–4.38) were more likely to be vaccinated, while at the socio-structural level, believing vaccination would violate religious beliefs (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06–0.65) was associated with decreased uptake. The government can formulate a multi-level approach according to our findings to target the remaining unvaccinated FDW population.

Investigating Knowledge toward COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cross-sectional Survey in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

AIM: Since there were pros and cons, and insufficient knowledge among Indonesian regarding the vaccines, this research aims to investigate the knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccination among employees who work in an Islamic University in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional design was used to investigate the people’s knowledge of COVID-19 vaccination. The survey was conducted before the first vaccination of COVID-19 in March 2021. A descriptive analysis method was performed. Seven hundred sixty-two respondents completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: Respondent’s average age was 34.61 years old (standard deviation = 11.821, range 20–64), 54.1% of female and 45.9% of male. 448 (58.8%) respondents did not have any comorbid history. Respondents mostly obtained vaccination information through social media (86.25%). Most respondents had sufficient knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine (83.2%), particularly those aged 20–29. For side effects, 585 (76.8%) respondents answered that they experienced pain in the injection area after getting the COVID-19 vaccination. This study showed that the respondents aged 20–29 years old had sufficient knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSION: As knowledge plays an essential role in accepting vaccinations, health-care workers’ efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccination should be directed toward the middle-aged and elderly population to support the government’s plan to increase the rate of COVID-19 vaccinations in Indonesia.

Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions

Vaccines are highly effective for curbing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Yet, millions of Americans remain hesitant about getting vaccinated, jeopardizing our ability to end the COVID-19 pandemic by fueling the spread and development of new variants. We show that brief video-based messages of encouragement addressing specific COVID-19 vaccine concerns increase vaccination intentions, and that vaccination intentions, in turn, are predictive of future vaccine uptake. Results from our online experiment reveal that willingness to get vaccinated is driven by messages that increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and perceived behavioral control to get vaccinated. Importantly, messages were particularly effective among more skeptical populations including people who identify as politically conservative or moderate and those who express low trust in government institutions. Our findings corroborate the real-world behavioral significance of vaccination intentions, and devise how even short, scalable online messages can provide governments and health authorities an inexpensive, yet effective tool for increasing intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19 among populations most reluctant to get them.

Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons

BACKGROUND

Vaccine uptake rates have been historically low in correctional settings. To better understand vaccine hesitancy in these high-risk settings, we explored reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people in federal prisons.

METHODS

Three maximum security all-male federal prisons in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario (Canada) were chosen, representing prisons with the highest proportions of COVID-19 vaccine refusal. Using a qualitative descriptive design and purposive sampling, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with incarcerated people who had previously refused at least one COVID-19 vaccine until data saturation was achieved. An inductive-deductive thematic analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted using the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy.

RESULTS

Between May 19-July 8, 2021, 14 participants were interviewed (median age: 30 years; n = 7 Indigenous, n = 4 visible minority, n = 3 White). Individual-, interpersonal-, and system-level factors were identified. Three were particularly relevant to the correctional setting: 1) Risk perception: participants perceived that they were at lower risk of COVID-19 due to restricted visits and interactions; 2) Health care services in prison: participants reported feeling "punished" and stigmatized due to strict COVID-19 restrictions, and failed to identify personal benefits of vaccination due to the lack of incentives; 3) Universal distrust: participants expressed distrust in prison employees, including health care providers.

INTERPRETATION

Reasons for vaccine refusal among people in prison are multifaceted. Educational interventions could seek to address COVID-19 risk misconceptions in prison settings. However, impact may be limited if trust is not fostered and if incentives are not considered in vaccine promotion.

Investigating the intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccination in Macao: implications for vaccination strategies

BACKGROUND

Understanding the intention of receiving COVID-19 vaccines is important to inform effective vaccination strategies. This study aimed to investigate such intention, identify the key influencing factors, and determine the most important intention predictors using a theoretically principled model.

METHODS

An online, cross-sectional survey method was implemented in Macao in May 2021. People aged 18 years or above and residing in Macao for 12 months prior to the study were recruited through social media. Intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines and the main constructs of the protection motivation theory and the health belief model were the main measures encompassing threat appraisal, intrapersonal characteristics, cues to action, coping appraisal, past experiences and information seeking behavior. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 552 valid responses were received. Among the respondents, 79.5% aged between 25 and 54 years old, 59.4% were female, and 88% had a bachelor degree or above; 62.3% of the respondents indicated their intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination while 19.2% were hesitant and 18.5% did not have any intention. While 67.0% believed COVID-19 infection was life-threatening, only 19.0% thought they were at risk of getting infected. Control variables such as age, gender, education level, and having travel plans were significantly correlated with intention. Significant associations between intention with perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, maladaptive response reward, self-efficacy, response-efficacy, response cost, social attitude, social norm, past experience and information seeking behavior were identified (P < 0.05). The most important positive predictors of intention were "being able to make arrangement to receive the vaccine" (β = 0.333, P < 0.001), "a sense of social responsibility" (β = 0.326, P < 0.001), and "time off from work after vaccination" (β = 0.169, P < 0.001), whereas "concerns over vaccine safety" (β = - 0.124, P < 0.001) and "relying on online resources for vaccine information" (β = - 0.065, P < 0.05) were negative predictors. Perceived severity in terms of COVID-19 being a life threatening illness was not a predictor of intention.

CONCLUSION

This study reaffirmed that intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination is an ongoing concern in the combat of the pandemic. Multi-component strategies to enhance health literacy that supports well-informed decision-making, increase vaccination convenience, promote social responsibility, and provide time-off incentives are among the key considerations in designing and improve vaccination campaigns in Macao.

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage, Behaviors, and Intentions among Adults with Previous Diagnosis, United States

To determine the extent of gaps in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine coverage among those in the United States with and without previous COVID-19 diagnoses, we used data from a large, nationally representative survey conducted during July 21-August 2, 2021. We analyzed vaccine receipt (≥1 dose and full vaccination) and intention to be vaccinated for 63,266 persons. Vaccination receipt was lower among those who had a prior diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to those without: >1 dose: 73% and 85%, respectively, p<0.001; full vaccination: 69% and 82%, respectively, p<0.001). Reluctance to be vaccinated was higher among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (14%) than among those without (9%). These findings suggest the need to focus educational and confidence-building interventions on adults who receive a COVID-19 diagnosis during clinic visits, or at the time of discharge if hospitalized, and to better educate the public about the value of being vaccinated, regardless of previous COVID-19 infection.

Association between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and generalized trust, depression, generalized anxiety, and fear of COVID-19

Background

Although numerous studies have been published on the predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, some possible predictors remain underexplored. In this study, we explored the associations of unwillingness and indecisiveness regarding COVID-19 vaccination with generalized trust, mental health conditions such as depression and generalized anxiety, and fear of COVID-19.

Methods

Data of wave 1 (from October 27 till November 6, 2020) and wave 3 (from April 23 till May 6, 2021) of a longitudinal online study conducted in Japan were used for the analyses. Unvaccinated participants were asked at wave 3 about their willingness to be vaccinated, with possible responses of willing, unwilling, or undecided. These three responses were used as the outcome variable, and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted with willingness to be vaccinated as the reference group. Explanatory variables included generalized trust, depression, generalized anxiety, and fear of COVID-19 both at wave 1 and 3, and sociodemographic and health-related variables.

Results

Of the 11,846 valid respondents, 209 (1.8%) answered that they had already been vaccinated against COVID-19, 7089 (59.8%) responded that they were willing to be vaccinated, 3498 (29.5%) responded that they were undecided, and 1053 (8.9%) responded that they were unwilling to be vaccinated. After adjusting for covariates, we found that: (1) participants with lower levels of generalized trust at wave 1 and 3 were more likely to be undecided or unwilling at wave 3; (2) respondents with moderately severe or severe depression at wave 1 and 3 were more likely to be undecided at wave 3; (3) participants with moderate or severe levels of generalized anxiety at wave 3 but not at wave 1 were more likely to be unwilling at wave 3; and (4) respondents with high levels of fear of COVID-19 at wave 1 and 3 were less likely to be undecided and unwilling at wave 3.

Conclusions

Generalized trust, mental health conditions such as depression and generalized anxiety, and low level of fear of COVID-19 are associated with unwillingness or indecision regarding being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-12479-w.

Guaranteed Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Pilot Program in North Carolina

This quasi-experimental study examines whether offering an incentive cash card to adults who receive or drive someone to receive their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine raises vaccination rates.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on routine immunization

The current COVID-19 global pandemic continues to impact healthcare services beyond those directly related to the management of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease. We reviewed the published literature to assess the pandemic impact on existing global immunization activities and how the impact may be addressed. Widespread global disruption in routine childhood immunization has impacted a majority of regions and countries, especially in the initial pandemic phases. While data indicate subsequent recovery in immunization rates, a substantial number of vulnerable people remain unvaccinated. The downstream impact may be even greater in resource-limited settings and economically poorer populations, and consequently there are growing concerns around the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases, particularly measles. Guidance on how to address immunization deficits are available and continue to evolve, emphasizing the importance of maintaining and restoring routine immunization and necessary mass vaccination campaigns during and after pandemics. In this, collaboration between a broad range of stakeholders (governments, industry, healthcare decision-makers and frontline healthcare professionals) and clear communication and engagement with the public can help achieve these goals.Key messagesThe COVID-19 pandemic has a substantial impact on essential immunization activities.Disruption to mass vaccination campaigns increase risk of VPD resurgence.Catch-up campaigns are necessary to limit existing shortfalls in vaccine uptake.Guidance to mitigate these effects continues to evolve.

COVID-19 vaccination perceptions and intentions of maternity care consumers and providers in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination against COVID-19 is a key global public health strategy. Health professionals including midwives and doctors support and influence vaccination uptake by childbearing women. There is currently no evidence regarding the COVID-19 vaccination perceptions and intentions of those who receive or provide maternity care in Australia. The aim of this study was to address this gap in knowledge and explore the perceptions and intentions regarding COVID-19 vaccination from consumers and providers of maternity care in Australia.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional online study conducted in early 2021 in Australia, a country that has had a very low number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Recruitment was undertaken through parenting and health professional social media sites and professional college distribution lists. A total of 853 completed responses, from women (n = 326), maternity care providers including doctors (n = 58), midwives (n = 391) and midwifery students (n = 78).

FINDINGS

Personal intention to be vaccinated ranged from 48-89% with doctors most likely and women least likely. Doctors and midwifery students were significantly more likely to recommend the vaccine to pregnant women in their care than midwives (p<0.001). Fewer doctors (2%) felt that women should wait until breastfeeding had concluded before being vaccinated compared with 24% of midwives and 21% of midwifery students (p<0.001). More than half of the midwives (53%) had concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine for the women in their care compared with 35% of doctors and 46% of midwifery students. Despite national guidelines recommending vaccination of breastfeeding women, 54% of practitioners were unlikely to recommend vaccination for this group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to explore the perceptions and intentions regarding COVID-19 vaccination from the perspective of those who receive and provide maternity care in Australia. Findings have utility to support targeted public health messaging for these and other cohorts.

Promotion of behavioural change for health in a heterogeneous population

Public health policy often involves implementing cost-efficient, large-scale interventions. When mandating or forbidding a specific behaviour is not permissible, public health professionals may draw on behaviour change interventions to achieve socially beneficial policy objectives. Interventions can have two main effects: (i) a direct effect on people initially targeted by the intervention; and (ii) an indirect effect mediated by social influence and by the observation of other people's behaviour. However, people's attitudes and beliefs can differ markedly throughout the population, with the result that these two effects can interact to produce unexpected, unhelpful and counterintuitive consequences. Public health professionals need to understand this interaction better. This paper illustrates the key principles of this interaction by examining two important areas of public health policy: tobacco smoking and vaccination. The example of antismoking campaigns shows when and how public health professionals can amplify the effects of a behaviour change intervention by taking advantage of the indirect pathway. The example of vaccination campaigns illustrates how underlying incentive structures, particularly anticoordination incentives, can interfere with the indirect effect of an intervention and stall efforts to scale up its implementation. Recommendations are presented on how public health professionals can maximize the total effect of behaviour change interventions in heterogeneous populations based on these concepts and examples.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a City with Free Choice and Sufficient Doses

Background: Vaccine hesitancy represents one of the major global health issues around the world. We examined the perception, attitude, perceived barriers and facilitation measures of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in a Chinese population with free vaccine choices (Sinovac [Coronavac] vs. BioNTech/Fosun [Comirnaty]) and adequate doses. Method: We conducted a random telephone survey of the general population in 1195 subjects aged 18 years or above from 23 April 2021 to 8 May 2021 after two months of vaccine rollout. A descriptive analysis of the levels of enabling factors, obstacles and perception of COVID-19 vaccination was conducted using ANOVA and Chi-square tests for trend. Results: Only 10.1% and 13.5% had received one and two COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. Among those who had not received any COVID-19 vaccine (75.4%), only 25.1% expressed their intention to receive in the coming 6 months. The barriers with the highest scores included “having heard of cases with serious adverse events or death after vaccination” (score: 8.17 out 10, 95% C.I. 7.99, 8.35), “lack of confidence on governmental recommendations” (7.69, 95% C.I. 7.47, 7.91), and “waiting for a better vaccine” (7.29, 95% C.I. 7.07, 7.52). The highest score for the impact of various incentives for vaccination was for “vaccine passports for overseas travel” (4.44, 95% C.I. 4.18, 4.71). Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy is commonly observed in this Chinese population despite adequate provision of vaccine doses and choices. No single incentive is strong enough to promote vaccination, and multiple facilitation measures for different groups of population are needed to encourage vaccine uptake. Active clarification and promotion by medical professionals together with a variety of incentives are needed to drive vaccine uptake.

Motivations to Vaccinate Among Hesitant Adopters of the COVID-19 Vaccine

Vaccination is a critical means for mitigating the worst effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (US). However, the initial high demand for COVID-19 vaccines has not persisted, and the rate of vaccination slowed significantly in the summer of 2021. This study seeks to understand the motivations to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among hesitant adopters. Hesitant adopters are individuals who express some level of hesitancy about the vaccine but have also received at least one dose of the vaccine. Using a qualitative descriptive design, three loci for motivation emerged during analysis: extrinsic motivators, intrinsic motivators, and structural motivators. Extrinsic motivations, such as protecting one’s community, family, and friends, were reported as driving vaccination behavior. Among intrinsic motivators, the desire to protect themselves from COVID-19 was the most frequently reported. Structural motivators were also identified, indicating that vaccine mandates also serve to motivate hesitant adopters of the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings have important implications in ongoing efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the US and highlight the multi-dimensional motivations for vaccination among hesitant adopters. Additionally, we provide recommendations for practice based on our findings.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among individuals with cancer, autoimmune diseases, and other serious comorbid conditions: A cross-sectional internet-based survey

Background

Individuals with comorbid conditions have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Since regulatory trials of COVID-19 vaccines excluded those with immunocompromising conditions, few patients with cancer and autoimmune diseases were enrolled. With limited vaccine safety data available, vulnerable populations may have conflicted vaccine attitudes.

Objective

We assessed the prevalence and independent predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among individuals with serious comorbidities and assessed self-reported side effects among those who had been vaccinated.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, 55-item, online survey, fielded January 15, 2021 through February 22, 2021, among a random sample of members of Inspire, an online health community of over 2.2 million individuals with comorbid conditions. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to determine factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy and acceptance.

Results

Of the 996,500 members of the Inspire health community invited to participate, responses were received from 21,943 individuals (2.2%). Respondents resided in 123 countries (United States: 16,277/21,943, 74.2%), had a median age range of 56-65 years, were highly educated (college or postgraduate degree: 10,198/17,298, 58.9%), and had diverse political leanings. All respondents self-reported at least one comorbidity: cancer, 27.3% (5459/19,980); autoimmune diseases, 23.2% (4946/21,294); chronic lung diseases: 35.4% (7544/21,294). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was identified in 18.6% (3960/21,294), with 10.3% (2190/21,294) declaring that they would not, 3.5% (742/21,294) stating that they probably would not, and 4.8% (1028/21,294) not sure whether they would agree to be vaccinated. Hesitancy was expressed by the following patients: cancer, 13.4% (731/5459); autoimmune diseases, 19.4% (962/4947); chronic lung diseases: 17.8% (1344/7544). Positive predictors of vaccine acceptance included routine influenza vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 1.53), trust in responsible vaccine development (OR 14.04), residing in the United States (OR 1.31), and never smoked (OR 1.06). Hesitancy increased with a history of prior COVID-19 (OR 0.86), conservative political leaning (OR 0.93), younger age (OR 0.83), and lower education level (OR 0.90). One-quarter (5501/21,294, 25.8%) had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine injection, and 6.5% (1390/21,294) completed a 2-dose series. Following the first injection, 69.0% (3796/5501) self-reported local reactions, and 40.0% (2200/5501) self-reported systemic reactions, which increased following the second injection to 77.0% (1070/1390) and 67.0% (931/1390), respectively.

Conclusions

In this survey of individuals with serious comorbid conditions, significant vaccine hesitancy remained. Assumptions that the most vulnerable would automatically accept COVID-19 vaccination are erroneous and thus call for health care team members to initiate discussions focusing on the impact of the vaccine on an individual’s underlying condition. Early self-reported side effect experiences among those who had already been vaccinated, as expressed by our population, should be reassuring and might be utilized to alleviate vaccine fears. Health care–related social media forums that rapidly disseminate accurate information about the COVID-19 vaccine may play an important role.

Living with COVID-19: The road ahead

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world for more than a year, with multiple waves of infections resulting in morbidity, mortality and disruption to the economy and society. Response measures employed to control it have generally been effective but are unlikely to be sustainable over the long term.

METHODS

We examined the evidence for a vaccine-driven COVID-19 exit strategy including academic papers, governmental reports and epidemiological data, and discuss the shift from the current pandemic footing to an endemic approach similar to influenza and other respiratory infectious diseases.

RESULTS

A desired endemic state is characterised by a baseline prevalence of infections with a generally mild disease profile that can be sustainably managed by the healthcare system, together with the resumption of near normalcy in human activities. Such an endemic state is attainable for COVID-19 given the promising data around vaccine efficacy, although uncertainty remains around vaccine immunity escape in emergent variants of concern. Maintenance of non-pharmaceutical interventions remains crucial until high vaccination coverage is attained to avoid runaway outbreaks. It may also be worthwhile to de-escalate measures in phases, before standing down most measures for an endemic state. If a variant that substantially evades immunity emerges, it will need to be managed akin to a new disease threat, with pandemic preparedness and response plans.

CONCLUSION

An endemic state for COVID-19, characterised by sustainable disease control measures, is likely attainable through vaccination.

The effect of deadlines on cancer screening completion: a randomized controlled trial

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Although screening facilitates prevention and early detection and is one of the most effective approaches to reducing cancer mortality, participation is low—particularly among underserved populations. In a large, preregistered field experiment (n = 7711), we tested whether deadlines—both with and without monetary incentives tied to them—increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We found that all screening invitations with an imposed deadline increased completion, ranging from 2.5% to 7.3% relative to control (ps < .004). Most importantly, individuals who received a short deadline with no incentive were as likely to complete screening (9.7%) as those whose invitation included a deadline coupled with either a small (9.1%) or large declining financial incentive (12.0%; ps = .57 and .04, respectively). These results suggest that merely imposing deadlines—especially short ones—can significantly increase CRC screening completion, and may also have implications for other forms of cancer screening.