Vaccination as a social contract

"Going vaccine hunting": Multilevel influences on COVID-19 vaccination among racialized sexual and gender minority adults-a qualitative study

High levels of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy have been reported among Black and Latinx populations, with lower vaccination coverage among racialized versus White sexual and gender minorities. We examined multilevel contexts that influence COVID-19 vaccine uptake, barriers to vaccination, and vaccine hesitancy among predominantly racialized sexual and gender minority individuals. Semi-structured online interviews explored perspectives and experiences around COVID-19 vaccination. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, uploaded into ATLAS.ti, and reviewed using thematic analysis. Among 40 participants (mean age, 29.0 years [SD, 9.6]), all identified as sexual and/or gender minority, 82.5% of whom were racialized. COVID-19 vaccination experiences were dominated by structural barriers: systemic racism, transphobia and homophobia in healthcare and government/public health institutions; limited availability of vaccination/appointments in vulnerable neighborhoods; absence of culturally-tailored and multi-language information; lack of digital/internet access; and prohibitive indirect costs of vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy reflected in uncertainties about a novel vaccine amid conflicting information and institutional mistrust was integrally linked to structural factors. Findings suggest that the uncritical application of "vaccine hesitancy" to unilaterally explain undervaccination among marginalized populations risks conflating structural and institutional barriers with individual-level psychological factors, in effect placing the onus on those most disenfranchised to overcome societal and institutional processes of marginalization. Rather, disaggregating structural determinants of vaccination availability, access, and institutional stigma and mistrust from individual attitudes and decision-making that reflect vaccine hesitancy, may support 1) evidence-informed interventions to mitigate structural barriers in access to vaccination, and 2) culturally-informed approaches to address decisional ambivalence in the context of structural homophobia, transphobia, and racism.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, trust, and communication in Sarlahi District, Nepal

BACKGROUND

Strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine coverage require an understanding of the extent and drivers of vaccine hesitancy and trust in government related to COVID-19 vaccine programs, especially in low-resource communities.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional household survey post-COVID-19 vaccine introduction among adults (n = 362) in four municipalities in Sarlahi District, Nepal from August to December 2022. The survey included modules on participant demographics and socioeconomic factors and vaccine hesitancy, information seeking, and trust in authorities related to COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

Of the study participants, 38.4 % expressed hesitancy related to COVID-19 vaccination. The adjusted odds of being "vaccine hesitant" were significantly lower among the older adults (51+ years) relative to younger (<30 years) (aOR: 0.49, CI: 0.24-0.97) and among males relative to females (aOR: 0.51, CI: 0.26, 0.95). The study population highly trusted the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. While for most, self-reported access to vaccination opportunities was high (88.4 %), 70.4 % of participants did not know if vaccines were in stock at their local vaccination facility. Commonly reported statements of misinformation include the vaccine being developed in a rush or too fast (21.5 %), COVID-19 infection can be effectively treated with ayurvedic medicine(16.3 %) and obtaining immunity from natural infection is better than through vaccination (19.9 %). The primary sources of information on COVID-19 programs were family and friends (98.6 %), healthcare professionals (67.7 %), Female Community Health Volunteers (FCHVs) (61.9 %), television (56.4 %), and radio (43.1 %).

CONCLUSION

Although many respondents expressed concerns about COVID-19 effectiveness and safety, a high proportion trusted COVID-19 information provided by healthcare workers and approved of the government's response to the pandemic. This study highlights an opportunity to design new evidence-based communication strategies to improve vaccine confidence delivered through frontline government healthcare workers. Approaches could be targeted to certain communities in the region shown to have higher vaccine hesitancy, including younger people and women.

Behaviorally Informed Text Message Nudges to Schedule COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations among Veterans, may limit uptake. Behaviorally informed text-based messages have the potential to improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of two different behaviorally informed text message nudges on COVID-19 vaccine scheduling and completion, compared to standard control message.

DESIGN

Prospective, three-arm patient-level randomized quality improvement trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Between March and May 2021, 20,523 Veterans were eligible for the initial series of COVID-19 vaccination, enrolled at two large Veterans Health Administration sites.

INTERVENTION

Arm 1 (Control): standard scheduling message; Arm 2 (Social Good): standard message plus behaviorally informed text message "When you get a vaccine now, you help protect yourself, your family, and your community"; and Arm 3 (Scarcity): standard plus behaviorally informed text message "Only a limited number of vaccine appointments are available."

MAIN MEASURES

Outcomes were vaccine scheduling and/or completion rate within 7 days of receipt of text message (primary), and within 14 days and 30 days after receipt of text message (secondary).

KEY RESULTS

Veterans had an overall rate of 19% of scheduling or receiving a vaccination in 7 days. In our adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, we found no difference between intervention social good or scarcity (aOR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.09, for both arms) compared to standard scheduling message. We found no statistical differences in our secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

During the initial phases of vaccine roll-out, two behaviorally informed text messages did not increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among Veterans compared to a standard scheduling message.

The vaccination divide: Exploring moral reasoning associated with intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated people

OBJECTIVES

There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude.

METHODS

Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022.

RESULTS

Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

CONCLUSIONS

This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate.

Unraveling the Dark Side of Social Norms-Toward a Research Agenda on the Challenges of Social Norms in Health Communication

Social norms are a promising means in health crisis communication because they can guide collective action to reduce risk. However, recent research on the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that social norms may have not fully supported strategic goals and even contributed to phenomena that hindered risk reduction, calling into question the potential of social norms campaigns. This became most evident during the COVID-19 pandemic in the emergence of alternative norms of measure opposition, stigmatization of norm-deviant individuals, and the issue of free-riding. The article analyzes these phenomena from a social identity and communication perspective and outlines areas for further inquiry in health and crisis communication. The goal is to pave the way for a research agenda dedicated to the dark side of social norms to unlock the full potential of social norms in times of (health) crisis.

Moral obligation, autonomous motivation and vaccine hesitancy: Highlighting moral obligation increases reactance in hesitant individuals

Vaccine hesitancy is widespread, and developing effective communication strategies that encourage hesitant individuals to choose vaccination is essential. This pre-registered research aimed to examine associations among moral obligation, autonomous motivation, vaccination intentions and reactance, and to test messages highlighting moral obligation and autonomy support. In Study 1, participants who had not received a Covid-19 vaccine (N = 1036) completed measures of autonomous motivation, moral obligation, reactance, intentions to vaccinate and vaccine hesitancy. Autonomous motivation and moral obligation emerged as strong independent predictors of lower reactance, lower hesitancy and greater vaccination intentions. In Study 2 (N = 429), the participants received a vaccination-promoting message that highlighted moral obligation versus personal protection and used autonomy supportive versus controlling language. Messages with autonomy-supportive language and highlighting personal protection elicited lower reactance and greater perceived legitimacy compared to messages with controlling language and highlighting moral obligation. All messages elicited greater reactance and lower perceived legitimacy compared to an information-only message, and there were no effects of message type on vaccination intentions or vaccine hesitancy. The research has implications for the design of communications encouraging vaccination in hesitant individuals and suggests caution should be taken when developing messages to encourage vaccination in hesitant individuals.

"Not Only a Matter of Personal Interest"-Vaccination Narratives and the Model of Moral Motives in China and Germany

Understanding vaccination decision-making processes is vital for guiding vaccine promotion within pandemic contexts and for routine immunization efforts. Vaccine-related attitudes influencing individual decision-making can be affected by broader cultural and normative contexts. We conducted 73 qualitative interviews with adults in China (n = 40) and Germany (n = 33) between December 2020 and April 2021 to understand COVID-19 vaccination intentions and preferences, and we analyzed transcripts using a five-step framework approach. During early analysis, we identified moral considerations in line with the tenets of the Model of Moral Motives (MMM) as a recurrent theme in the data. The MMM guided further analysis steps, particularly with its distinction between motives that are proscriptive (focus on avoiding harm by inhibiting "bad" behavior) and prescriptive (focus on actively seeking positive outcomes). Proscriptive vaccination arguments that compelled vaccination in our data included avoiding negative attention, being a law-abiding citizen, preventing harm to others, and protecting one's country. Prescriptive motives focused on self-efficacious behavior such as protecting the health of oneself and others via widespread but voluntary vaccination, prioritizing elderly and predisposed individuals for vaccination, and favoring a fair and equitable distribution of vaccines at the global level. In the interviews in China, both lines of arguments emerged, with a general tendency toward more proscriptive reasoning; interviews conducted in Germany tended to reflect more prescriptive motives. We encourage research and vaccine promotion practice to reflect moral considerations when aiming to understand public health preventive behavior and when developing tailored health promotion campaigns.

Social Stigma and COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal in France

CONTEXT

In 2021, French health authorities strongly promoted vaccination against COVID-19. The authors assumed that refusing this vaccine became a stigma, and they investigated potential public stigma toward unvaccinated people among the French population.

METHODS

A representative sample of the French adult population (N = 2,015) completed an online questionnaire in September 2021. The authors focused on participants who were already vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to get vaccinated (N = 1,742). A cluster analysis was used to obtain contrasted attitudinal profiles, and the authors investigated associated factors with logistic regressions.

FINDINGS

Regarding attitudes toward unvaccinated people, a majority of respondents supported several pejorative statements, and a significant minority also endorsed social rejection attitudes. The authors found four contrasting attitudinal profiles: moral condemnation only (32% of respondents), full stigma (26%), no stigma (26%), and stigma rejection (16%). Early vaccination, civic motives for it, faith in science, rejection of political extremes, and being aged 65 or older were the main factors associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward unvaccinated people.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found some evidence of stigmatization toward unvaccinated people, but further research is needed, especially to investigate perceived stigmatization among them. The authors discuss their results with reference to the concept of "folk devils" and from a public health perspective.

Contractualist tendencies and reasoning in moral judgment and decision making

The social-contract tradition of Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls has been widely influential in moral philosophy but has until recently received relatively little attention in moral psychology. For contractualist moral theories, ethics is a matter of forming, adhering to, and enforcing (hypothetical) agreements, and morality is fundamentally about acting according to what would be agreed by rational agents. A recent psychological theory, virtual bargaining, models social interactions in contractualist terms, suggesting that we often act as we would agree to do if we were to negotiate explicitly. However, whether such contractualist tendencies (a propensity to make typically contractualist choices) and forms of reasoning (agreement-based cognitive processes) play a role in moral cognition is still unclear. Drawing upon virtual bargaining, we develop two novel experimental paradigms designed to elicit incentivized decisions and moral judgments. We then test the descriptive relevance of contractualism in moral judgment and decision making in five preregistered online experiments (n = 4103; English-speaking Prolific participants). In the first task, we find evidence that many participants show contractualist tendencies: their choices are "characteristically" contractualist. In the second task, we find evidence consistent with contractualist reasoning influencing some participants' judgments and incentivized decisions. Our findings suggest that a propensity to act as prescribed by tacit agreements may be particularly important in understanding the moral psychology of fleeting social interactions and coordination problems. By complementing the rich literature on deontology and consequentialism in moral psychology, empirical approaches inspired by contractualism may prove fruitful to better understand moral cognition.

Using smartphones to study vaccination decisions in the wild

One of the most important tools available to limit the spread and impact of infectious diseases is vaccination. It is therefore important to understand what factors determine people's vaccination decisions. To this end, previous behavioural research made use of, (i) controlled but often abstract or hypothetical studies (e.g., vignettes) or, (ii) realistic but typically less flexible studies that make it difficult to understand individual decision processes (e.g., clinical trials). Combining the best of these approaches, we propose integrating real-world Bluetooth contacts via smartphones in several rounds of a game scenario, as a novel methodology to study vaccination decisions and disease spread. In our 12-week proof-of-concept study conducted with N = 494 students, we found that participants strongly responded to some of the information provided to them during or after each decision round, particularly those related to their individual health outcomes. In contrast, information related to others' decisions and outcomes (e.g., the number of vaccinated or infected individuals) appeared to be less important. We discuss the potential of this novel method and point to fruitful areas for future research.

Quantifying Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates by Rural and Urban Areas: Cross-Sectional Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Vaccination plays an important role in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing the severity of the disease. There are usually differences in vaccination rates between urban and rural areas. Measuring these differences can aid in developing more coordinated and sustainable solutions. This information also serves as a reference for the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases in the future.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the current coverage rate and influencing factors of COVID-19 (second booster) vaccination among Chinese residents, as well as the disparities between urban and rural areas in China.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used a stratified random sampling approach to select representative samples from 11 communities and 10 villages in eastern (Changzhou), central (Zhengzhou), western (Xining), and northeast (Mudanjiang) Mainland China from February 1 to February 18, 2023. The questionnaires were developed by experienced epidemiologists and contained the following: sociodemographic information, health conditions, vaccine-related information, information related to the Protective Motivation Theory (PMT), and the level of trust in the health care system. Vaccination rates among the participants were evaluated based on self-reported information provided. Binary logistic regression models were performed to explore influencing factors of vaccination among urban and rural participants. Urban-rural disparities in the vaccination rate were assessed using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 5780 participants were included, with 53.04% (3066/5780) being female. The vaccination rate was 12.18% (704/5780; 95% CI 11.34-13.02) in the total sample, 13.76% (341/2478; 95% CI 12.40-15.12) among the rural participants, and 10.99% (363/3302; 95% CI 9.93-12.06) among the urban participants. For rural participants, self-reported health condition, self-efficacy, educational level, vaccine knowledge, susceptibility, benefits, and trust in the health care system were independent factors associated with vaccination (all P＜.05). For urban participants, chronic conditions, COVID-19 infection, subjective community level, vaccine knowledge, self-efficacy, and trust in the health care system were independent factors associated with vaccination (all P＜.05). PSM analysis uncovered a 3.42% difference in vaccination rates between urban and rural participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The fourth COVID-19 vaccination coverage rate (second booster) among the Chinese population was extremely low, significantly lower than the previous vaccine coverage rate. Given that COVID-19 infection is still prevalent at low levels, efforts should focus on enhancing self-efficacy to expand the vaccine coverage rate among the Chinese population. For rural residents, building awareness of the vaccine's benefits and improving their overall health status should be prioritized. In urban areas, a larger proportion of people with COVID-19 and patients with chronic illness should be vaccinated.

Asymmetric affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination in six European countries

While recent research has shown that supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination have polarizing political attitudes and beliefs, we lack a thorough understanding of how these two groups think about each other. To investigate the feelings and stereotypes between supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination, this study draws on cross-sectional survey data from six European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), collected between January and March 2022 (n = 6379). Our findings indicate an opinion-based affective polarization between supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination. Both groups not only adopt different positions on the issue but also display dynamics of in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. Most notably, our assessment of thermometer scores and character trait ratings shows that this affective polarization is asymmetric, as it is stronger among the pro-vaccination group. Our findings are critical to the control of infectious diseases because affective polarization has been shown to influence health behaviors such as compliance with government policies. The issue is even more pressing as globalization boosts the threat of pandemic emergence and accelerates the global transmission of diseases.

Covid and the common good: In-group out-group dynamics and Covid-19 vaccination in Wales and the United States

Vaccination is a social act, where benefits spill-over to third parties. How we approach such social decisions is influenced by whether likely beneficiaries share salient social identities with us. This study explores these dynamics using representative survey data from two contexts: national identity groups in Wales (N = 4187) and political partisans in America (N = 4864). In both cases, those in the minority in their local area were less likely to be vaccinated. In Wales, respondents who did not identify as Welsh were less likely to be vaccinated the greater the proportion of residents of their local area identified as Welsh. In America, the vaccination rate of Biden voters fell off more steeply than that of Trump voters as the proportion of Trump voters in their county increased. Results are robust to controlling for likely confounds and sensitivity analyses. In-group out-group dynamics help to shape important health decisions.

A Fluorinated Sialic Acid Vaccine Lead Against Meningitis B and C

Inspired by the specificity of α-(2,9)-sialyl epitopes in bacterial capsular polysaccharides (CPS), a doubly fluorinated disaccharide has been validated as a vaccine lead against Neisseria meningitidis serogroups C and/or B. Emulating the importance of fluorine in drug discovery, this molecular editing approach serves a multitude of purposes, which range from controlling α-selective chemical sialylation to mitigating competing elimination. Conjugation of the disialoside with two carrier proteins (CRM197 and PorA) enabled a semisynthetic vaccine to be generated; this was then investigated in six groups of six mice. The individual levels of antibodies formed were compared and classified as highly glycan-specific and protective. All glycoconjugates induced a stable and long-term IgG response and binding to the native CPS epitope was achieved. The generated antibodies were protective against MenC and/or MenB; this was validated in vitro by SBA and OPKA assays. By merging the fluorinated glycan epitope of MenC with an outer cell membrane protein of MenB, a bivalent vaccine against both serogroups was created. It is envisaged that validation of this synthetic, fluorinated disialoside bioisostere as a potent antigen will open new therapeutic avenues.

A practical agenda for incorporating trust into pandemic preparedness and response

Despite widespread acknowledgement that trust is important in a pandemic, few concrete proposals exist on how to incorporate trust into preparing for the next health crisis. One reason is that building trust is rightly perceived as slow and challenging. Although trust in public institutions and one another is essential in preparing for a pandemic, countries should plan for the possibility that efforts to instil or restore trust may fail. Incorporating trust into pandemic preparedness means acknowledging that polarization, partisanship and misinformation may persist and engaging with communities as they currently are, not as we would wish them to be. This paper presents a practical policy agenda for incorporating mistrust as a risk factor in pandemic preparedness and response planning. We propose two sets of evidence-based strategies: (i) strategies for ensuring the trust that already exists in a community is sustained during a crisis, such as mitigating pandemic fatigue by health interventions and honest and transparent sense-making communication; and (ii) strategies for promoting cooperation in communities where people mistrust their governments and neighbours, sometimes for legitimate, historical reasons. Where there is mistrust, pandemic preparedness and responses must rely less on coercion and more on tailoring local policies and building partnerships with community institutions and leaders to help people overcome difficulties they encounter in cooperating with public health guidance. The regular monitoring of interpersonal and government trust at national and local levels is a way of enabling this context-specific pandemic preparedness and response planning.

Separating individual and group-level cooperation in the Public Goods Game

Cooperation in the Public Goods Game (PGG) is determined by a mixture of individual differences (e.g. personality, social preferences) and group dynamics (e.g. reciprocation, social norms). However, to our knowledge, no thorough attempt has been made to separate individual and group levels of cooperation and to quantify the variance in cooperation that can be attributed to the group level. In an analysis of 10 open datasets (total N = 4,556, 1,003 groups, 7-50 rounds), we chart the trajectory of individual and group-level variance across rounds of repeated PGGs. We find that the portion of group-level variance increases initially and plateaus around the fifth round, typically at a level between 20 and 50%. In addition, we identify four factors that increase the portion of group-level variance: (i) punishment opportunities; (ii) detailed feedback including all group members' decisions; (iii) small groups (≤4 players); and (iv) groups with homogenous social preferences.

"It's My Moral Responsibility to Protect Others!" Examining the Effects of Moral Framing and Message Format on Influenza Vaccination Attitude and Intention

Vaccinations serve a dual purpose: safeguarding the vaccinated individuals while also preventing potential transmission to others. However, the pro-vaccine message has primarily emphasized the personal health risks and harms of not getting vaccinated, while rarely highlighting the moral responsibility of getting vaccinated to protect others. Guided by the Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars (MIME) along with the narrative persuasion framework, the current study conducted a 2 (moral framing: vaccination to protect oneself vs. protect others) X 2 (message format: statistical vs. narrative) between-subject online experiment to examine the effects of moral framing and message format on vaccination decision-making. The results revealed that individuals exposed to a pro-vaccine message framing vaccination as a moral responsibility to protect others from harm reported significantly higher levels of perceived moral responsibility and elevation, more positive attitudes toward the flu vaccine, and an increased intention to get vaccinated compared to a pro-vaccine message emphasizing vaccination for self-protection. Counterintuitively, presenting the moral responsibility of receiving the flu vaccine to safeguard others in a statistical format was discovered to be more effective in fostering favorable attitudes toward vaccination and increasing the intention to get vaccinated. This study offers a valuable insight: promoting vaccination as a moral duty could be a promising strategy for motivating individuals to get vaccinated.

Building and sustaining public and political commitment to the value of vaccination: Recommendations for the Immunization Agenda 2030 (Strategic Priority Area 2)

Vaccines have contributed to substantial improvements in health and social development outcomes for millions in recent decades. However, equitable access to immunization remains a critical challenge that has stalled progress toward improving several health indicators around the world. The COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively impacted routine immunization services around the world further threatening universal access to the benefits of lifesaving vaccines. To overcome these challenges, the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) focuses on increasing both commitment and demand for vaccines. There are three broad barriers that will need to be addressed in order to achieve national and subnational immunization targets: (1) shifting leadership priorities and resource constraints, (2) visibility of disease burden, and (3) social and behavioral drivers. IA2030 proposes a set of interventions to address these barriers. First, efforts to ensure government engagement on immunization financing, regulatory, and legislative frameworks. Next, those in subnational leadership positions and local community members need to be further engaged to ensure local commitment and demand. Governance structures and health agencies must accept responsibility and be held accountable for delivering inclusive, quality, and accessible services and for achieving national targets. Further, the availability of quality immunization services and commitment to adequate financing and resourcing must go hand-in-hand with public health programs to increase access to and demand for vaccination. Last, strengthening trust in immunization systems and improving individual and program resilience can help mitigate the risk of vaccine confidence crises. These interventions together can help ensure a world where everyone, everywhere has access to and uses vaccines for lifesaving vaccination.

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

Reciprocity versus Self-Interest in a Competitive Interaction Context: An Experimental Study

In social interactions, the reciprocity norm implies to adjust one's behavior to that of the other agents. Conversely, behaving according to self-interest involves taking into account the reciprocity principle only if it does not hinder the achievement of one's goals. However, reciprocity and self-interest may conflict with each other, as when returning a kind action involves sacrificing the possibility to achieve a personal objective. The conflict could be exacerbated by some contextual factors, such as competitive pressures. This study investigated, in a competitive interaction context, which principle prevails when the two conflict. To this end, 276 unpaid participants (M = 138) took part in a two-stage experiment entailing a simulated interaction with a fictitious opponent, which behaved selfishly, fairly or altruistically toward them during the first stage. Participants had to decide whether or not to reciprocate the opponent's previous behavior, which in the critical experimental conditions conflicted with the goal to successfully complete the experiment. So, they were faced with a moral dilemma. Competition degree was manipulated to make the conflict between reciprocity and self-interest more or less harsh. Moreover, we tested whether the putative effect of experimental manipulation was mediated by changes in context-related affective states and personal beliefs about morality. Results showed that decision-making was principally influenced by reciprocity. Regardless of the competition degree, participants preferred to engage in reciprocal behavior even when this compromised their personal interest. Affective states and beliefs changed in response to the experimental manipulation, but they did not mediate the effect of the independent variable on decision-making.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

Examining double standards in layoff preferences and expectations for gender, age, and ethnicity when violating the social norm of vaccination

Whether vaccination refusal is perceived as a social norm violation that affects layoff decisions has not been tested. Also unknown is whether ascribed low-status groups are subject to double standards when they violate norms, experiencing stronger sanctions in layoff preferences and expectations, and whether work performance attenuates such sanctioning. Therefore, we study layoff preferences and expectations using a discrete choice experiment within a large representative online survey in Germany (N = 12,136). Respondents chose between two employee profiles, each with information about ascribed characteristics signaling different status groups (gender, age, and ethnicity), work performance (work quality and quantity, and social skills), and whether the employees refused to vaccinate against COVID-19. We found that employees who refused vaccination were more likely to be preferred and expected to be laid off. Respondents also expected double standards regarding layoffs due to vaccination refusal, hence, harsher treatment of females and older employees. Nonetheless, their preferences did not reflect such double standards. We found little support that high work performance attenuates these sanctions and double standards, opening questions about the conditions under which social biases arise. Our results suggest detrimental consequences of vaccination refusal for individuals, the labor market, and acceptance of health policies.

Motivating vaccination with financial incentives

Governments and organizations often offer cash payments for vaccination. How effective are such payments? A literature review shows that incentives usually increase vaccination, especially for nonhesitant populations and when using guaranteed payments. Concerns about negative unintended consequences are unsupported. We also discuss open questions and avenues for future research.

Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased

How people recall the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is likely to prove crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action. Beyond simple forgetting, previous research suggests that recall may be distorted by strong motivations and anchoring perceptions on the current situation1-6. Here, using 4 studies across 11 countries (total n = 10,776), we show that recall of perceived risk, trust in institutions and protective behaviours depended strongly on current evaluations. Although both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were affected by this bias, people who identified strongly with their vaccination status-whether vaccinated or unvaccinated-tended to exhibit greater and, notably, opposite distortions of recall. Biased recall was not reduced by providing information about common recall errors or small monetary incentives for accurate recall, but was partially reduced by high incentives. Thus, it seems that motivation and identity influence the direction in which the recall of the past is distorted. Biased recall was further related to the evaluation of past political action and future behavioural intent, including adhering to regulations during a future pandemic or punishing politicians and scientists. Together, the findings indicate that historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased, sustain societal polarization and affect preparation for future pandemics. Consequently, future measures must look beyond immediate public-health implications to the longer-term consequences for societal cohesion and trust.

Parental views and the key role of nurses for high vaccine acceptance in Sweden - a focus group study

BACKGROUND

In Sweden, vaccine uptake is exceptionally high due to an efficient child immunization program. More than 97% of Swedish children were vaccinated at child health care centers (CHCs) according to the schedule at 2 years of age in 2021. From the age of 6 years, vaccinations are given within the school health care. Maintaining high vaccination coverage over time is one of the central motives to explore and understand drivers for vaccine acceptance. The current study aimed to assess parental vaccine acceptance concerning the national immunization program and explore factors contributing to the high vaccine acceptance in Sweden.

METHODS

Parents of children aged 1-2 years and 8-12 years were recruited through purposive sampling and asked to participate in focus groups held in three cities in Sweden, in February and March 2019. In total, 47 parents participated in two focus groups per city, one session for parents of younger (1-2 years) and older (8-12 years) children respectively. The focus group discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Parents of children aged 1-2 years expressed the themes; strong compliance to and protection of the value of vaccinations; parents feel safe with an attentive relationship with their nurse; the spectrum of communication needs is essential to meet. For parents to children aged 8-12 years, the themes expressed were; vaccinate to do good for the individual and society; a foundation of trust is built at CHCs for decisions later on; decisions for vaccination become more complex as children get older; communication changes as children get older and need to be explicit and tailored to the situation.

CONCLUSION

Both individual and societal perspectives were shown to influence the vaccination decision for childhood immunizations, as manifested in parental reflections and experiences. As nurses have a key role, it is important to provide them with continued support and tools to facilitate their support for parents in making informed decisions. Continuous work for supporting driving factors for vaccination over time is needed to maintain high vaccine acceptance in Sweden.

Intentions to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19: The Role of Prosociality and Conspiracy Beliefs across 20 Countries

Understanding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake is important to inform policy decisions and plan vaccination campaigns. The aims of this research were to: (1) explore the individual- and country-level determinants of intentions to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, and (2) examine worldwide variation in vaccination intentions. This cross-sectional online survey was conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, involving 6697 respondents across 20 countries. Results showed that 72.9% of participants reported positive intentions to be vaccinated against COVID-19, whereas 16.8% were undecided, and 10.3% reported they would not be vaccinated. At the individual level, prosociality was a significant positive predictor of vaccination intentions, whereas generic beliefs in conspiracy theories and religiosity were negative predictors. Country-level determinants, including cultural dimensions of individualism/collectivism and power distance, were not significant predictors of vaccination intentions. Altogether, this study identifies individual-level predictors that are common across multiple countries, provides further evidence on the importance of combating conspiracy theories, involving religious institutions in vaccination campaigns, and stimulating prosocial motives to encourage vaccine uptake.

The Influence of Recommendation of Medical and Non-Medical Authorities on the Decision to Vaccinate against Influenza from a Social Vaccinology Perspective: Cross-Sectional, Representative Study of Polish Society

Vaccination against seasonal flu is crucial to prevention of illness in modern societies. The level of influenza vaccination in Poland is low and, for many years, has hovered around a few percent of the general population. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the reasons for such a low level of vaccination and to assess the influence of medical and social authorities on the decision to vaccinate against influenza from the perspective of social vaccinology. For this purpose, a representative survey was conducted in 2022 among adult Poles (N = 805), orchestrated with the CAWI technique based on the author's questionnaire. The most significant authority in the context of influenza vaccination is held by physicians, especially among the oldest part of the population, over 65 years of age-in this group, 50.4% of respondents declare a very high level of respect for physicians on the issue of recommended influenza vaccination (p < 0.001), and the second-highest authority group for which seniors have respect in the aspect of influenza vaccination is pharmacists (p = 0.011). It was also shown that pharmacists have more authority on the issue of influenza vaccination than nurses, especially in the group that declared themselves opponents of vaccination (p < 0.001). The survey indicates the need to strengthen the authority of physicians and pharmacists regarding influenza vaccination, and, in the case of pharmacists, the need for changing the law to allow them to qualify for influenza vaccination.

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Intention: The Roles of Institutional Trust, Perceived Vaccine Safety, and Interdependent Self-Construal

The purpose of this study is to explore the process through which institutional trust influences individuals' vaccination intentions for a coronavirus vaccine. We collected data from a national representative sample of the Spanish population (N = 500) from an online research panel to test the proposed conceptual model. Results revealed a positive association of institutional trust with coronavirus vaccination intentions. This effect was mediated by perceived vaccine safety and positive attitude toward the vaccine. Furthermore, findings corroborate the moderating effect of interdependent self-construal on the indirect relationship between institutional trust and vaccination intention, implying that this effect was stronger for individuals with higher levels of interdependent orientation. Findings have implications for the development of evidence-based health communication strategies for encouraging COVID-19 vaccination.

Resistance to COVID-19 vaccination and the social contract: evidence from Italy

Confronted with stalled vaccination efforts against COVID-19, many governments embraced mandates and other measures to incentivize vaccination that excluded the unvaccinated from aspects of social and economic life. Even still, many citizens remained unvaccinated. We advance a social contract framework for understanding who remains unvaccinated and why. We leverage both observational and individual-level survey evidence from Italy to study the relationship between vaccination status and social context, social trust, political partisanship, and adherence to core institutional structures such as the rule of law and collective commitments. We find that attitudes toward the rule of law and collective commitments outside the domain of vaccination are strongly associated with compliance with vaccine mandates and incentives. Partisanship also corresponds with vaccine behaviors, as supporters of parties whose leaders criticized aggressive policies to incentivize or mandate vaccination and emphasized individual liberty are least likely to comply. Our findings suggest appeals emphasizing individual benefits may be more effective than appeals emphasizing collective responsibility.

Association between the COVID-19 Vaccine and Preventive Behaviors: Panel Data Analysis from Japan

The coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is key to reducing the probability of contracting COVID-19. The vaccine is generally known to prevent severe illness, death, and hospitalization as a result of the disease and for considerably reduce COVID-19 infection risk. Accordingly, this might significantly change an individual's perceived risk of altering everyday behaviors. For instance, the proliferation of vaccination is anticipated to reduce preventive behaviors such as staying at home, handwashing, and wearing a mask. We corresponded with the same individuals monthly for 18 months from March 2020 (early stage of COVID-19) to September 2021 in Japan to independently construct large sample panel data (N = 54,007), with a participation rate of 54.7%. We used a fixed effects model, controlling for key confounders, to determine whether vaccination was associated with a change in preventive behaviors. The major findings are as follows. Contrary to the prediction, (1) based on the whole sample, being vaccinated against COVID-19 led people to stay at home; however, it did not change the habit of handwashing and wearing a mask. Especially after the second shot, respondents were likelier to stay at home by 0.107 (95% CIs: 0.059-0.154) points on a 5-point scale compared to before the vaccination. Dividing the entire sample into young and old, (2) those aged ≤ 40 years were more likely to go out after being vaccinated, and (3) people over 40 years of age were more likely to stay at home (similar to the first result). Preventive behaviors impact all individuals during the current pandemic. Informal social norms motivate people to increase or maintain preventive behaviors even after being vaccinated in societies where these behaviors are not enforced.

Public Figure Vaccination Rhetoric and Vaccine Hesitancy: Retrospective Twitter Analysis

Background

Social media has emerged as a critical mass communication tool, with both health information and misinformation now spread widely on the web. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, some public figures promulgated anti-vaccine attitudes, which spread widely on social media platforms. Although anti-vaccine sentiment has pervaded social media throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear to what extent interest in public figures is generating anti-vaccine discourse.

Objective

We examined Twitter messages that included anti-vaccination hashtags and mentions of public figures to assess the connection between interest in these individuals and the possible spread of anti-vaccine messages.

Methods

We used a data set of COVID-19-related Twitter posts collected from the public streaming application programming interface from March to October 2020 and filtered it for anti-vaccination hashtags "antivaxxing," "antivaxx," "antivaxxers," "antivax," "anti-vaxxer," "discredit," "undermine," "confidence," and "immune." Next, we applied the Biterm Topic model (BTM) to output topic clusters associated with the entire corpus. Topic clusters were manually screened by examining the top 10 posts most highly correlated in each of the 20 clusters, from which we identified 5 clusters most relevant to public figures and vaccination attitudes. We extracted all messages from these clusters and conducted inductive content analysis to characterize the discourse.

Results

Our keyword search yielded 118,971 Twitter posts after duplicates were removed, and subsequently, we applied BTM to parse these data into 20 clusters. After removing retweets, we manually screened the top 10 tweets associated with each cluster (200 messages) to identify clusters associated with public figures. Extraction of these clusters yielded 768 posts for inductive analysis. Most messages were either pro-vaccination (n=329, 43%) or neutral about vaccination (n=425, 55%), with only 2% (14/768) including anti-vaccination messages. Three main themes emerged: (1) anti-vaccination accusation, in which the message accused the public figure of holding anti-vaccination beliefs; (2) using "anti-vax" as an epithet; and (3) stating or implying the negative public health impact of anti-vaccination discourse.

Conclusions

Most discussions surrounding public figures in common hashtags labelled as "anti-vax" did not reflect anti-vaccination beliefs. We observed that public figures with known anti-vaccination beliefs face scorn and ridicule on Twitter. Accusing public figures of anti-vaccination attitudes is a means of insulting and discrediting the public figure rather than discrediting vaccines. The majority of posts in our sample condemned public figures expressing anti-vax beliefs by undermining their influence, insulting them, or expressing concerns over public health ramifications. This points to a complex information ecosystem, where anti-vax sentiment may not reside in common anti-vax-related keywords or hashtags, necessitating further assessment of the influence that public figures have on this discourse.

COVID-19 vaccine incentive scheduling using an optimally controlled reinforcement learning model

We model Covid-19 vaccine uptake as a reinforcement learning dynamic between two populations: the vaccine adopters, and the vaccine hesitant. Using data available from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), we estimate the payoff matrix governing the interaction between these two groups over time and show they are playing a Hawk-Dove evolutionary game with an internal evolutionarily stable Nash equilibrium (the asymptotic percentage of vaccinated in the population). We then ask whether vaccine adoption can be improved by implementing dynamic incentive schedules that reward/punish the vaccine hesitant, and if so, what schedules are optimal and how effective are they likely to be? When is the optimal time to start an incentive program, how large should the incentives be, and is there a point of diminishing returns? By using a tailored replicator dynamic reinforcement learning model together with optimal control theory, we show that well designed and timed incentive programs can improve vaccine uptake by shifting the Nash equilibrium upward in large populations, but only so much, and incentive sizes above a certain threshold show diminishing returns.

The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization

Public discord between those vaccinated and those unvaccinated for COVID-19 has intensified globally. Theories of intergroup relations propose that identifying with one's social group plays a key role in the perceptions and behaviours that fuel intergroup conflict. We test whether identification with one's vaccination status is associated with current societal polarization. The study draws on panel data from samples of vaccinated (n = 3,267) and unvaccinated (n = 2,038) respondents in Germany and Austria that were collected in December 2021 and February, March and July 2022. The findings confirm that vaccination status identification (VSI) explains substantial variance in a range of polarizing attitudes and behaviours. VSI was also related to higher psychological reactance toward mandatory vaccination policies among the unvaccinated. Higher levels of VSI reduced the gap between intended and actual counterbehaviours over time by the unvaccinated. VSI appears to be an important measure for predicting behavioural responses to vaccination policies.

Providing normative information increases intentions to accept a COVID-19 vaccine

Despite the availability of multiple safe vaccines, vaccine hesitancy may present a challenge to successful control of the COVID-19 pandemic. As with many human behaviors, people's vaccine acceptance may be affected by their beliefs about whether others will accept a vaccine (i.e., descriptive norms). However, information about these descriptive norms may have different effects depending on the actual descriptive norm, people's baseline beliefs, and the relative importance of conformity, social learning, and free-riding. Here, using a pre-registered, randomized experiment (N = 484,239) embedded in an international survey (23 countries), we show that accurate information about descriptive norms can increase intentions to accept a vaccine for COVID-19. We find mixed evidence that information on descriptive norms impacts mask wearing intentions and no statistically significant evidence that it impacts intentions to physically distance. The effects on vaccination intentions are largely consistent across the 23 included countries, but are concentrated among people who were otherwise uncertain about accepting a vaccine. Providing normative information in vaccine communications partially corrects individuals' underestimation of how many other people will accept a vaccine. These results suggest that presenting people with information about the widespread and growing acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines helps to increase vaccination intentions.

Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sizeable groups of unvaccinated people persist even in countries with high vaccine access¹. As a consequence, vaccination became a controversial subject of debate and even protest². Here we assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in the form of negative affectivity, stereotypes and exclusionary attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. We quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world. Across three conjoined experimental studies (n = 15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations^3-5. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA. We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated individuals in all countries except for Hungary and Romania, and find that discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. Previous research on the psychology of cooperation has shown that individuals react negatively against perceived 'free-riders'^6,7, including in the domain of vaccinations^8,9. Consistent with this, we find that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (that is, vaccinated individuals) react with discriminatory attitudes towards perceived free-riders (that is, unvaccinated individuals). National leaders and vaccinated members of the public appealed to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake^10,11, but our findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes-including support for the removal of fundamental rights-simultaneously emerged.

Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza risk perception and vaccination intention among Pima County residents in Arizona

While influenza cases in Arizona have nearly tripled since 2018, vaccination rates continue to lag. Statewide, Hispanics and African Americans had the lowest vaccination rates despite having higher influenza infection rates than Whites. Given Arizona's racial influenza vaccination disparity and the general increase in vaccination hesitancy due to COVID-19, the purpose of this study was to better understand the influences of seasonal influenza vaccination in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic using qualitative methods. Findings from this study revealed that many participants were motivated to get the influenza vaccine to protect their family and close friends. The heightened concern for COVID-19 prompted some Hispanic/Latino focus group discussion participants to consider getting vaccinated. However, many Hispanic/Latino participants also expressed that they stopped getting influenza vaccine due to negative vaccination experiences or concern about sickness following immunization. African American participants primarily discussed receiving the vaccine as part of their routine health visit. Compared to other races, more White participants believed that vaccination was unimportant because they were healthy, and the people they interacted with never got sick. Distinct factors influence risk perception and vaccination intention across different racial/ethnic groups. Effective interventions can account for these factors and be tailored to the target population to maximize vaccination uptake.

Attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal

AIMS

Investigating attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal in an area with insufficient vaccination coverage may help health authorities to assess which strategies for increasing vaccination coverage are appropriate. This study examines attitudes to vaccine mandates and asks questions regarding what kinds of sanctions could legitimately result from vaccination refusal. It seeks to find out if people's attitudes towards mandates and towards sanctions for vaccination refusal are related to their attitudes to vaccines and the degree of trust they feel towards health care professionals and health care authorities. The study also discusses how the observed attitudes towards mandates may be related to perceptions of autonomy, responsibility, and equitability.

METHODS

Data collection was carried out in Finland through an online survey in a region with suboptimal vaccine uptake. Statistical analysis was conducted on a sample of 1101 respondents, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural regression analysis.

RESULTS

Persons hold different views on mandates and sanctions. Importantly, the persons who support vaccination mandates and sanctions for vaccination refusal are to a great degree the same people who have positive attitudes to vaccines and high trust in health care professionals and health authorities.

CONCLUSION

Trust is a key factor which has a bearing on people's attitudes towards mandates and sanctions for noncompliance. A focus on the reasons for lack of trust, and on how to enhance trust, is a more feasible long-term way (than mandates) to promote large- scale compliance with childhood vaccine programmes in the studied country context.

Attitude toward a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and its determinants: Evidence from serial cross-sectional surveys conducted throughout the pandemic in Germany

BACKGROUND

Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 is often discussed as a means to counter low vaccine uptake. Beyond the potential legal, ethical, and psychological concerns, a successful implementation also needs to consider citizens' support for such a policy. Public attitudes toward vaccination mandates and their determinants might differ over time and, hence, should be monitored.

METHODS

Between April 2020 and April 2021, we investigated public support for mandatory vaccination policies in Germany and examined individual correlates, such as vaccination intentions, confidence in vaccine safety, and perceived collective responsibility, using a series of cross-sectional, quota-representative surveys (overall N = 27,509).

RESULTS

Support for a vaccination mandate declined before the approval of the first vaccine against COVID-19 in December 2020 and increased afterwards. However, at the end of April 2021, only half of respondents were in favor of mandatory regulations. In general, mandates were endorsed by those who considered the vaccines to be safe, anticipated practical barriers, and felt responsible for the collective. On the contrary, perceiving vaccination as unnecessary and weighing the benefits and risks of vaccination was related to lower support. Older individuals and males more often endorsed vaccination mandates than did younger participants and females. Interestingly, there was a gap between vaccination intentions and support for mandates, showing that the attitude toward mandatory vaccination was not only determined by vaccination-related factors such as vaccine safety or prosocial considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of low public support, mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 should be considered a measure of last resort in Germany. However, if removing barriers to vaccination and educational campaigns about vaccine safety and the societal benefits of high vaccination uptake are not sufficient for increasing vaccination uptake to the required levels, mandates could be introduced. In this case, measures to ensure and increase acceptance and adherence should be taken.

Triage in Times of COVID-19: A Moral Dilemma

We present evidence from choice experiments on hypothetical triage decisions in a pandemic. Respondents have to decide who out of two patients gets ventilation. Patients are described in terms of attributes such as short-term survival chance, long-term life expectancy, and their current ventilation status. Attributes are derived from the ethical discourse among experts regarding triage guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic and differ in the extent to which they are salient from a utilitarian or deontological perspective. Empirically, we find that although nonexperts agree with experts in prioritizing utilitarian attributes in triage decisions, nonexperts also consider the adherence to the norm of wearing face masks as particularly relevant. Furthermore, our study supports Greene and colleagues' dual-process model of moral judgment; we find that utilitarian attributes are more decisive for respondents with a greater inclination toward utilitarianism and for respondents with a greater tendency toward reflection.

Adherence of those at low risk of disease to public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

Public health measures (PHMs) proactively and reactively reduce the spread of disease. While these measures target individual behaviour, they require broad adherence to be effective. Consequently, the World Health Organization issued a special appeal to young adults, a known non-adherent population, for increased adherence with COVID-19 guidelines. However, little is known about why these low-risk individuals do or do not adhere to PHMs. This study investigates why young adults in a low-risk setting adhered to PHMs implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative research approach was chosen to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ thoughts and experiences related to PHM adherence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in April-May 2021 with 30 young adults living in Prince Edward Island (PEI), the province with the lowest COVID-19 case rate in Canada at that time. Thematic analysis was used to create a codebook based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, which was then inductively modified. The analysis identified eight themes that explained the adherence of young adults: (1) clear, purpose-driven adherence rationale, (2) developing trust in the local leadership, (3) adapting to novel measures, (4) manageable disruption, (5) adhering to reduce anxiety, (6) collective duty towards one’s community, (7) moral culpability and (8) using caution rather than compliance. Together, these themes demonstrate that young adults adhered to PHMs because of their sense of connection to their community, public health leadership, and concerns over stigma. We further argue that clear guidelines and communication from public health officials during both periods of high and low COVID-19 cases facilitate adherence. These findings are important for mitigating future public health emergencies as they explain why young adults, an important segment of the population whose adherence is critical to the success of PHMs, follow PHMs. Further, these findings can inform public health officials and other stakeholders aiming to develop successful adherence strategies.

Asymmetrical friendships? People are willing to risk COVID-19 infection from friends but are reluctant to pass it on to them

Although most protective behaviors related to the COVID-19 pandemic come with personal costs, they will produce the largest benefit if everybody cooperates. This study explores two interacting factors that drive cooperation in this tension between private and collective interests. A preregistered experiment (N = 299) examined (a) how the quality of the relation among interacting partners (social proximity), and (b) how focusing on the risk of self-infection versus onward transmission affected intentions to engage in protective behaviors. The results suggested that risk focus was an important moderator of the relation between social proximity and protection intentions. Specifically, participants were more willing to accept the risk of self-infection from close others than from strangers, resulting in less caution toward a friend than toward a distant other. However, when onward transmission was the primary concern, participants were more reluctant to effect transmission to close others, resulting in more caution toward friends than strangers. These findings inform the debate about effective nonclinical measures against the pandemic. Practical implications for risk communication are discussed.

Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level

Objective

For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences–while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison).

Results

Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds.

Conclusion

Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.

Belief traps: Tackling the inertia of harmful beliefs

Beliefs can be highly resilient in the sense that they are not easily abandoned in the face of counterevidence. This has the advantage of guiding consistent behavior and judgments but may also have destructive consequences for individuals, nature, and society. For instance, pathological beliefs can sustain psychiatric disorders, the belief that rhinoceros horn is an aphrodisiac may drive a species extinct, beliefs about gender or race may fuel discrimination, and belief in conspiracy theories can undermine democracy. Here, we present a unifying framework of how self-amplifying feedbacks shape the inertia of beliefs on levels ranging from neuronal networks to social systems. Sustained exposure to counterevidence can destabilize rigid beliefs but requires organized rational override as in cognitive behavioral therapy for pathological beliefs or institutional control of discrimination to reduce racial biases. Black-and-white thinking is a major risk factor for the formation of resilient beliefs associated with psychiatric disorders as well as prejudices and conspiracy thinking. Such dichotomous thinking is characteristic of a lack of cognitive resources, which may be exacerbated by stress. This could help explain why conspiracy thinking and psychiatric disorders tend to peak during crises. A corollary is that addressing social factors such as poverty, social cleavage, and lack of education may be the most effective way to prevent the emergence of rigid beliefs, and thus of problems ranging from psychiatric disorders to prejudices, conspiracy theories, and posttruth politics.

Fear trumps the common good: Psychological antecedents of vaccination attitudes and behaviour

The study investigated antecedents of attitudes towards vaccines against COVID-19 and vaccination behaviour, and sought to identify areas where interventions aimed at increasing vaccination rates would be most effective. A sample of 500 Slovaks (250 women) responded to questions concerning their socio-demographic and personality characteristics, collectivism and individualism, consciousness of future consequences, and emotional responses to both vaccination and the pandemic. The study indicates that helplessness related to the vaccine efficacy evaluation and fear of its potential risks are the strongest antecedents of vaccination behaviour and anti-vaccination attitudes. Jointly with the fear of the COVID-19, they explained over 26% and 33% of variance in behaviour and attitudes, respectively. The results indicate that the efficiency of appeals to solidarity may be limited when fear and helplessness are widespread as they seem to strongly outweigh individuals' outward motivations to get vaccinated.

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.

Immunize the HPV Vaccine Rumors: Effects of Inoculation Messages and Tone of Voice on Parental Intention to Vaccinate Their Children

The purpose of this study was to develop an effective health communication strategy to guide the decision-making process of parents considering getting their children HPV vaccines. Using inoculation theory and findings on tone of voice as theoretical frameworks, the present study conducted a 2 (message type: inoculation vs. supportive) × 2 (tone of voice: human voice vs. organizational voice) mixed experiment with a total of 231 U.S. parents (either mother or father of a child eligible for the HPV vaccine). The results revealed that HPV vaccination promotions based on the inoculation message were more likely to generate positive attitudes toward the vaccination, higher intention to vaccinate their children, and higher intention to spread positive word of mouth (WOM) about HPV vaccination. Also, HPV vaccination promotions in the human voice were likely to increase the WOM intention more than those in the organizational voice. In regard to an interaction effect, human voice turned out to be more effective than organizational voice to generate the WOM intention when it comes to supportive messages; inoculation-based messages were similarly effective across the human and the organizational voice condition.

Vaccination Intention and Behavior of the General Public in China: Cross-sectional Survey and Moderated Mediation Model Analysis

BACKGROUND

Promoting vaccination and eliminating vaccine hesitancy are key measures for controlling vaccine-preventable diseases.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand the beliefs surrounding and drivers of vaccination behavior, and their relationships with and influence on vaccination intention and practices.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based survey in 31 provinces in mainland China from May 24, 2021 to June 15, 2021, with questions pertaining to vaccination in 5 dimensions: attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intention, and behavior. We performed hierarchical regression analysis and structural equation modeling based on the theory of planned behavior-in which, the variables attitude, subjective norms, and intention each affect the variable intention; the variable intention mediates the relationships of attitude and subjective norms with behavior, and the variable perceived behavioral control moderates the strength of this mediation-to test the validity of the theoretical framework.

RESULTS

A total of 9924 participants, aged 18 to 59 years, were included in this study. Vaccination intention mediated the relationships of attitude and subjective norms with vaccination behavior. The indirect effect of attitude on vaccination behavior was 0.164 and that of subjective norms was 0.255, and the difference was statistically significant (P<.001). The moderated mediation analysis further indicated that perceived behavioral control would affect the mediation when used as moderator, and the interaction terms for attitude (β=-0.052, P<.001) and subjective norms (β=-0.028, P=.006) with perceived behavioral control were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjective norms have stronger positive influences on vaccination practices than attitudes. Perceived behavioral control, as a moderator, has a substitution relationship with attitudes and subjective norms and weakens their positive effects on vaccination behavior.

Resources or trust: What matters more in the vaccination strategies of high-income liberal democracies?

Objectives

This paper presents an overview of the vaccination policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Canada, and the United States until September 1, 2021. The article seeks to understand the reasons for vaccination differences among high-income, liberal democracies.

Methods

The country cases were selected based on tiers of population-level vaccination uptake within six months after vaccines became broadly available (for high-income countries). We conducted a rapid review of primary data for each country case. Through a graphical and descriptive analysis, we evaluated common patterns as well as significant divergences in the vaccination rollout across countries and its relationship with COVID-19 health outcomes, government policy responses, resource constraints, and socio-political factors. This inductive analysis provides a sense of how resource constraints compare with current political contexts in each country case that may influence the public's response to a national vaccination strategy.

Results

Resources, socio-economic factors, and health outcomes related to COVID-19 do not ensure vaccination policy success as the case of the United States makes clear. Instead, trust in government and health systems appear to promise a higher vaccination uptake and maintained support for measures during a pandemic. Trust in government can be defined as the confidence citizens have that governmental actions will do what is right and perceived as fair.

Conclusion

Denmark, the United States, and Canada are high-income liberal democracies with very different vaccine strategies and subsequently different vaccination outcomes across their populations. What appears to be critical to successful vaccination outcomes is high trust in government or health officials, along with the depoliticization of the COVID-19 pandemic among the country's political parties.