Race, ethnicity, psychological factors, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic

Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness (SMI) and people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe outcomes. We compare a tailored versus general best practice COVID-19 prevention program in group homes (GHs) for people with SMI or ID/DD in Massachusetts (MA).

METHODS

A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized control trial compared a four-component implementation strategy (Tailored Best Practices: TBP) to dissemination of standard prevention guidelines (General Best-Practices: GBP) in GHs across six MA behavioral health agencies. GBP consisted of standard best practices for preventing COVID-19. TBP included GBP plus four components including: (1) trusted-messenger peer testimonials on benefits of vaccination; (2) motivational interviewing; (3) interactive education on preventive practices; and (4) fidelity feedback dashboards for GHs. Primary implementation outcomes were full COVID-19 vaccination rates (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021) and fidelity scores (baseline: 5/1/21-7/30/21), at 3-month intervals to 15-month follow-up until October 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was COVID-19 infection (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021), measured every 3 months to 15-month follow-up. Cumulative incidence of vaccinations were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox frailty models evaluate differences in vaccination uptake and secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models (LMMs) and Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to evaluate differences in fidelity scores and incidence of COVID-19 infections.

RESULTS

GHs (n=415) were randomized to TBP (n=208) and GBP (n=207) including 3,836 residents (1,041 ID/DD; 2,795 SMI) and 5,538 staff. No differences were found in fidelity scores or COVID-19 incidence rates between TBP and GBP, however TBP had greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. No overall differences in vaccination rates were found between TBP and GBP. However, among unvaccinated group home residents with mental disabilities, non-White residents achieved full vaccination status at double the rate for TBP (28.6%) compared to GBP (14.4%) at 15 months. Additionally, the impact of TBP on vaccine uptake was over two-times greater for non-White residents compared to non-Hispanic White residents (ratio of HR for TBP between non-White and non-Hispanic White: 2.28, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies are beneficial as a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy with the potential to reduce disparities in vaccine acceptance among the subgroup of non-White individuals with mental disabilities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04726371, 27/01/2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04726371 .

The impact of COVID-19 vaccine reactions on secondary vaccine hesitancy

BACKGROUND

Primary and booster vaccinations are critical for mitigating COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. Future booster vaccine campaigns rely on an increased understanding of vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate self-reported allergic and skin vaccine reactions as factors potentially associated with vaccine hesitancy in a nationwide vaccine allergy registry.

METHODS

Responses to survey questions concerning COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, coded from free text by 2 independent reviewers. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between changed negative perception and respondent demographics, vaccination history, and reaction characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 993 individuals (median of 46 years [IQR, 36-59], 88% female, 82% White) self-reported reactions to COVID-19 vaccination. Reactions included the following: delayed large local skin reaction (40%), hives/urticaria (32%), immediate large local skin reaction (3%), swelling (3%), anaphylaxis (2%), and other or unspecified (20%). Most respondents were initially unconcerned about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines (56%). After reactions, 401 of 993 (40%) report negative change in perception of vaccination, with more than half of these respondents (n = 211, 53%) citing their reasoning as a negative experience with adverse effects. Of 102 individuals asked about future vaccination, 79 (77%) indicated that they were unlikely or very unlikely to receive future COVID-19 vaccinations. Increased negative perception after reaction was associated with younger age, later COVID-19 vaccination dose number, and reaction type.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal that an individual's experience with allergic or cutaneous adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination affects attitudes and decision-making regarding future vaccination, even in initially non-hesitant individuals. Further investigation of secondary vaccine hesitancy is necessary for adapting public health messaging to this important population.

Risk Factors for Not Completing a 2-Dose Primary Series of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccination in a Large Health Care System in Southern California: Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccination is crucial in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines were initially authorized as a 2-dose primary series and have been widely used in the United States; completing the 2-dose primary series offers protection against infection, severe illness, and death. Understanding the risk factors for not completing the 2-dose primary series is critical to evaluate COVID-19 vaccination programs and promote completion of the 2-dose primary series.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined potential risk factors for not completing a 2-dose primary series of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among members aged ≥18 years from a large integrated health care system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, from December 14, 2020, to June 30, 2022. Noncompletion of the 2-dose primary series was defined as not completing the second dose within 6 months after receipt of the first dose. Crude noncompletion rates were estimated overall and by demographic characteristics, health care use patterns, comorbidity, and community-level socioeconomic factors. A Poisson regression model was fit to examine associations of individual-level and community-level risk factors with noncompletion of the 2-dose primary series.

RESULTS

Among 2.5 million recipients of ≥1 dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, 3.3% (n=81,202) did not complete the second dose within 6 months. Members aged 25-44 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years were less likely to not complete the 2-dose primary series than those aged 18-24 years, while members aged 45-64 years were more likely to not complete the 2-dose primary series (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-1.15). Male sex was associated with a higher risk of noncompletion (aRR 1.17, 95% CI 1.15-1.19). Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity were associated with a lower risk of noncompletion (range aRR 0.78-0.91). Having Medicaid and prior influenza vaccination were associated with a higher risk of noncompletion. Having SARS-CoV-2 infection, experiencing an adverse event, or having an inpatient and emergency department visit during the minimum recommended dose intervals were associated with a higher risk of not completing the 2-dose primary series (aRR 1.98, 95% CI 1.85-2.12; 1.99, 95% CI 1.43-2.76; and 1.85, 95% CI 1.77-1.93, respectively). Those who received the first dose after June 30, 2021, were more likely to not complete the 2-dose primary series within 6 months of receipt of the first dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations such as being a single-site study and the inability to consider social factors such as employment and vaccine attitudes, our study identified several risk factors for not completing a 2-dose primary series of mRNA vaccination, including being male; having Medicaid coverage; and experiencing SARS-CoV-2 infection, adverse events, or inpatient and emergency department visits during the minimum recommended dose intervals. These findings can inform future efforts in developing effective strategies to enhance vaccination coverage and improve the completion rate of necessary doses.