Vaccine hesitancy in health-care providers in Western countries: a narrative review

The evolution of vaccine hesitancy through the COVID-19 pandemic: A semi-structured interview study on booster and bivalent doses

We sought in-depth understanding on the evolution of factors influencing COVID-19 booster dose and bivalent vaccine hesitancy in a longitudinal semi-structured interview-based qualitative study. Serial interviews were conducted between July 25th and September 1st, 2022 (Phase I: univalent booster dose availability), and between November 21st, 2022 and January 11th, 2023 (Phase II: bivalent vaccine availability). Adults (≥18 years) in Canada who had received an initial primary series and had not received a COVID-19 booster dose were eligible for Phase I, and subsequently invited to participate in Phase II. Twenty-two of twenty-three (96%) participants completed interviews for both phases (45 interviews). Nearly half of participants identified as a woman (n = 11), the median age was 37 years (interquartile range: 32-48), and most participants were employed full-time (n = 12); no participant reported needing to vaccinate (with a primary series) for their workplace. No participant reported having received a COVID-19 booster dose at the time of their interview in Phase II. Three themes relating to the development of hesitancy toward continued vaccination against COVID-19 were identified: 1) effectiveness (frequency concerns; infection despite vaccination); 2) necessity (less threatening, low urgency, alternate protective measures); and 3) information (need for data, contradiction and confusion, lack of trust, decreased motivation). The data from interviews with individuals who had not received a COVID-19 booster dose or bivalent vaccine despite having received a primary series of COVID-19 vaccines highlights actionable targets to address vaccine hesitancy and improve public health literacy.

A systematic review of measures of healthcare workers' vaccine confidence

Healthcare workers (HCW) perceptions toward vaccines influence patient and community vaccine decision making. In an era of rising vaccine hesitancy, understanding HCW vaccine confidence is critical. This systematic review aims to review instruments that have been validated to measure HCW vaccine confidence. We conducted a search in five databases in June 2023. Data was descriptively synthesized. Twelve articles describing 10 different tools were included. Most tools included dimensions or items on vaccine knowledge (n = 9), safety (n = 8), vaccine usefulness (n = 8), recommendation behavior (n = 8), and self-vaccination practice (n = 7). All, except one study, were conducted in high-income countries. There was variability in the quality of the validation process. There is limited existing literature on development and validation of tools for HCW vaccine confidence. Based on the tools currently available, the Pro-VC-Be tool is the most well validated. Further research needs to include low- and middle-income contexts.

Healthcare worker practices for HPV vaccine recommendation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are trusted sources of information for vaccination and their attitude toward vaccination is thus critical. We aimed to synthesize existing literature on healthcare workers' HPV vaccine confidence and their practices of recommending this vaccine. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, with the search conducted last in March 2024. For the inclusion criteria, the studies needed to include healthcare worker practices or behaviors on recommending the HPV vaccination. Seventy-three articles were included. The proportions of HCWs recommending varied considerably by region and gender of the recipient, but there was no statistically significant difference in income level or pre- or post-HPV vaccine introduction into the national vaccination program. The main barriers to recommending HPV vaccination were concerns around safety and efficacy, cost, parental concerns, and systemic barriers. The results illustrate the importance of contextually adapted approaches to improving vaccine acceptance and recommendation.

Factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy among college students: A cross-sectional survey based on 3Cs and structural equation model in China

Despite the high effectiveness of HPV vaccines in preventing infection, vaccine hesitancy remains a concern, particularly in China. This study aimed to explore college students' attitudes toward HPV vaccination and identify associated factors. Data was collected through a cross-sectional survey using self-administered questionnaires in four cities from May to June 2022. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors. Additionally, an integrated structural equation model (SEM) based on the 3Cs (confidence, convenience, complacency) was developed to understand underlying factors contributing to hesitancy. The results from 2261 valid questionnaires were enlightening. A significant 89.47% (59.4% for females) considered HPV vaccination necessary, with 9.82% remaining neutral and only 0.71% deeming it unnecessary. Factors like higher education, being a medical student, residing in urban areas, having medical insurance, more extraordinary living expenses, a family history of tumors, and a solid understanding of HPV played a role in perceiving the vaccine as necessary. Among the 1438 female respondents, 84.36% had no hesitancy toward HPV vaccination, 13.53% expressed hesitancy, and 2.11% refused vaccination. Factors like age, understanding of HPV, medical staff recommendations, living expenses, and family history influenced hesitancy levels. SEM revealed that the 3Cs significantly affected vaccine hesitancy. Factors like price, booking process, vaccination times, trust in vaccines, medical staff recommendations, efficiency, and risk perception collectively influenced hesitancy. In conclusion, this study found high acceptance of HPV vaccination but acknowledged the complexity of hesitancy factors. It recommends medical staff disseminate scientific knowledge, offer recommendations, simplify booking procedures, and expand vaccination sites to address vaccine hesitancy effectively.

Caregivers' perceptions on routine childhood vaccination: A qualitative study on vaccine hesitancy in a South Brazil state capital

Immunization programs worldwide have been facing challenges in keeping vaccination coverage high. Even though universally known for its robust National Immunization Program, Brazil has also faced significant challenges regarding vaccination coverage. One of the reasons for this is vaccine hesitancy, a complex, multi-causal, and context-specific phenomenon. This qualitative study aims to understand the factors associated with decision-making and the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in Florianopolis, Santa Catarina state capital, regarding caregivers' perceptions of routine childhood vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted in the Capital city of Santa Catarina State. Families with children up to 6 years old were included. Data were analyzed based on thematic content analysis. Twenty-nine caregivers in 18 families were interviewed. These caregivers were mainly mothers and fathers. Three themes emerged: 1. Access to information and the decision-making process, where we discuss the role of social circles, healthcare workers, and the internet; 2. Individual-institutions power relationships: Perceptions about the State's role and the Health institutions: 3. Reasons and motivations: The senses and meanings behind non-vaccination, where we discuss the drivers of vaccine hesitancy related to risk perception, caregivers' opinions on the medical-pharmaceutical industry, vaccines' composition and their side effects, families' lifestyles and worldviews, and the childhood routine vaccination schedule. The results of this study reaffirm the complexity of the decision-making process in childhood vaccination and further enable a better contextual understanding of the complex and challenging phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy.

Sexual and preventive behaviors associated with HAV, HBV, and HPV vaccine hesitancy among men who have sex with men in France

Vaccination coverage against hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and human papillomaviruses (HPV) is insufficient among men who have sex with men (MSM), partly because of their high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (VH) specific to these vaccines. This study aimed to investigate determinants of specific VH in MSM, focusing on characteristics of their sexual activity, propensity to use prevention tools and medical care, disclosure of sexual orientation to health care professionals (HCPs), and perceived stigmatization. A cross-sectional electronic survey (February - August 2022) collected perceptions of HBV, HAV, and HPV, and of their respective vaccines among 3,730 French MSM and enabled the construction of a specific VH variable. Using agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis, we constructed a typology of MSM sexual and prevention practices. We identified three MSM clusters (low- (C1, 24%), moderate- (C2, 41%), and high- (C3, 35%) "sexual activity/medical engagement") that showed an increasing gradient in the use of medical prevention with regular medical care and exposure to high-risk sexual practices. A multiple ordinal logistic regression showed that overall specific VH was higher in the C1 cluster and in men who had not informed their physician of their sexual orientation. This typology could usefully help to adapt vaccination communication strategies for MSM prevention program according to patients' profiles. HCPs should be encouraged and trained to ask men about their sexual practices and to provide appropriate vaccination recommendations nonjudgmentally.

Vaccine hesitancy educational interventions for medical students: A systematic narrative review in western countries

Physician recommendations can reduce vaccine hesitancy (VH) and improve uptake yet are often done poorly and can be improved by early-career training. We examined educational interventions for medical students in Western countries to explore what is being taught, identify effective elements, and review the quality of evidence. A mixed methods systematic narrative review, guided by the JBI framework, assessed the study quality using MERSQI and Cote & Turgeon frameworks. Data were extracted to analyze content and framing, with effectiveness graded using value-based judgment. Among the 33 studies with 30 unique interventions, effective studies used multiple methods grounded in educational theory to teach knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Most interventions reinforced a deficit-based approach (assuming VH stems from misinformation) which can be counterproductive. Effective interventions used hands-on, interactive methods emulating real practice, with short- and long-term follow-ups. Evidence-based approaches like motivational interviewing should frame interventions instead of the deficit model.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the Chinese elderly: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study

The United Nations reported that the mortality risk of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is five times higher in the elderly than the global average. Although the COVID-19 vaccine effectively prevents infections and reduce mortality among the elderly, vaccine hesitancy among the Chinese elderly poses a significant threat. This study, utilizing the "Confidence, Convenience and Complacency (3 Cs)" vaccine hesitancy model, aimed to explore factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy among the Chinese elderly and assess national countermeasures and potential improvement approaches. Thirteen elderly with vaccine hesitancy and eleven vaccine-related staff participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis revealed three key determinants of vaccine hesitancy among the elderly: perceived low threat of COVID-19, lack of confidence in COVID-19 vaccine, and poor accessibility to vaccination. China has implemented strategies, including advocacy through diverse channels, joint multi-sectoral promotion vaccination, and enhancing ongoing vaccination services. Recommendations from the vaccine-related staff emphasize improving vaccine awareness among the elderly, and prioritizing the vaccination environment and process. The study underscores the importance of targeted vaccination promotion programs addressing hesitation reasons to improve vaccination rates. Furthermore, existing countermeasures can serve as a foundation for enhancing vaccination strategies, including improved publicity, administration, and management approaches.

Analyzing the 7C psychological antecedents of vaccine acceptance throughout the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare sector workers in France: A repeated cross-sectional study (CappVac-Cov)

BACKGROUND

Across various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and related vaccine recommendations in France, we assessed the association of the 7C-psychological antecedents with vaccine uptake/intention for booster vaccination among healthcare-sector workers (HCSWs). We also assessed whether 7C-antecedent profiles changed over time.

METHODOLOGY

The Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES) conducted three repeated web-surveys which were disseminated by email chain-referral among HCSWs throughout France. The questionnaires waves took place: July-November 2021, February-March 2022 and January-March 2023 (P2, P3 and P4). We also reanalysed data from a prior similar study conducted late 2020-early 2021 (Moirangthem et al. (2022)) (P1). To evaluate the association of 7C-items with vaccine uptake-intention for future vaccination, we estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using robust variance Poisson regression. We report the 7C-item population attributable loss in vaccine intention.

RESULTS

The four surveys (P1-P4) encompassed 5234, 339, 351 and 437 participants. At earlier stages of the vaccine campaign, the principal antecedents of vaccine intention were favorable perception of vaccination benefit-risk-balance (BRB) (vs. unfavorable, aPR: 2.32), reactance to employer encouragement for vaccination (motivates vs. dissuades-me, aPR:2.23), vaccine confidence (vs. not-being-confident, aPR: 1.71) and social conformism towards vaccination (favorable vs. skeptical opinion in private environment, aPR: 1.33). Under a vaccine mandate for HCSWs, only perceiving vaccination as a collective action was associated with current vaccine status (agree vs. disagree, aPR: 2.19). At later stages of the epidemic, hypothetical booster vaccine intentions were strongly associated with BRB perception (favorable vs. unfavorable, aPR: 2.07) and perceiving vaccination as a collective action (agree vs. disagree, aPR: 1.69). Fearing a severe side effect from vaccination decreased population vaccine intention by 26.2 %.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that both 7C-antecedents and their association with vaccine behaviour can change over time, and underscore the importance of assuring confidence in vaccine safety.

Dissatisfaction with working conditions associated with lower vaccine confidence, commitment and behaviors among nurses: A large scale cross-sectional survey in France

BACKGROUND

Before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, doctor shortages led many countries to expand nurses' role in their mass vaccination programs. Nonetheless, nurses often express marked vaccine hesitancy. Simultaneously, their working conditions have been deteriorating.

OBJECTIVES

To study 1) the association between nurses' perceptions of their working conditions and their vaccination-related behaviors (vaccination recommendations to their patients), and 2) the mediating role in this associations of their trust in health authorities, vaccine confidence, and vaccine proactive efficacy.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey.

SETTINGS

Salaried, community (self-employed) and mixed nurses in France.

PARTICIPANTS

18,888 nurses registered with the French national order of nurses (ONI, registration is mandatory) (N = 439,323).

METHODS

In February 2023, this cross-sectional study used an online questionnaire to survey the nurses mandatorily registered with the French national order of nurses. Seven items adapted from models of psychosocial risk factors at work assessed their satisfaction with their working conditions. The international short version of the Pro-VC-Be (health professionals, vaccine confidence and behaviors), a validated instrument measuring psychosocial determinants of health-care professionals' vaccine behaviors) evaluated their vaccine-related attitudes and behaviors. Multiple group mediation analysis with structural equation modeling measured the associations between satisfaction at work, trust in health authorities, vaccine confidence, proactive efficacy (commitment and self-efficacy) in vaccination, and vaccination recommendations (against seasonal influenza for those with a chronic disease and against COVID-19 among adults).

RESULTS

Among the 18,888 participants, satisfaction at work had generally deteriorated, and only 47 % considered vaccines safe. Among salaried nurses (61 %), satisfaction at work was statistically significantly associated (p < 10-3) with trust in health authorities (β = 0.26 [0.24; 0.28]), vaccine confidence (total effect: β = 0.35 [0.31; 0.38]), proactive efficacy (total effect: β = 0.18 [0.16; 0.21]), and, to a smaller extent, with seasonal influenza and Covid-19 vaccine recommendations (total effect: β = 0.13 [0.09; 0.16]). Trust in health authorities played a statistically significant role (p < 10-3) mediating the associations of satisfaction at work with vaccine confidence and proactive efficacy. These three dimensions in turn mediated the relation between satisfaction at work and frequency of vaccination recommendations. These relations were similar among community nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction at work appears to enhance nurses' vaccination attitudes and behaviors, which are likely to reinforce their capacity to promote their patients' vaccination. Significant improvement in their working conditions is needed to enable them to accomplish this role serenely.

Attitudes and beliefs of healthcare providers toward vaccination in the United States: A cross-sectional online survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers' (HCPs') beliefs and practices regarding vaccination influence vaccine acceptance in patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe HCPs' beliefs and practices regarding vaccines and perceptions of patient perspectives related to vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional, online survey administered to 1213 HCPs based in the United States from December 2021 through January 2022. HCPs provided responses regarding their demographic and professional characteristics, beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness, vaccination practices, and their views regarding patients' willingness to receive vaccination.

RESULTS

Study participants included doctors (55.4 %); physician assistants (11.2 %); pharmacists (11.7 %); nurse practitioners (11.1 %); and registered nurses (10.6 %) from across the United States (West, 35.6 %; Midwest, 27.0 %; South, 25.6 %; Northeast, 11.9 %). HCPs belonged to group practices or clinics (34.5 %), private practices (31.9 %), hospital-based practices (21.9 %), or pharmacies (11.7 %). Most HCPs strongly believed it was their duty to promote vaccination (78.1 %) and used in-person conversations to educate patients about vaccines (85.0 %); 95.1 % had been vaccinated against COVID-19. HCPs reported that 54.9 % of patients accept all vaccines without hesitation, 21.0 % accept all vaccines but hesitate, 16.8 % accept only select vaccines, and 7.2 % reject all vaccines. Reasons commonly cited by patients for being hesitant to accept vaccines or refusal included negative media (hesitancy: 64.6 %; refusal: 73.2 %), the influence of friends or family (hesitancy: 60.5 %; refusal: 68.7 %), distrust of the government (hesitancy: 45.8 %; refusal: 68.4 %), concerns over long-term side effects (hesitancy: 56.1 %; refusal: 68.3 %), and worries about vaccine-related autism or infertility (hesitancy: 49.7 %; refusal: 71.9 %). HCPs reported that the largest contributors to vaccine misinformation among patients were social media (91.0 %), celebrities/TV personalities (63.5 %), and mass media (61.1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite most HCPs being active proponents of vaccination, misconceptions about vaccination and vaccine hesitancy persists. Consideration should be given to HCP training to support their efforts to promote vaccine acceptance.

Association of the belief in conspiracy narratives with vaccination status and recommendation behaviours of German physicians

Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization (WHO). The belief in conspiracy narratives is repeatedly discussed as a major driver of vaccine hesitancy among the general population. However, there is a lack of research investigating the role of the belief in conspiracy narratives in vaccination decisions and recommendation behaviours of physicians. This is particularly relevant as physicians are one of the major and trusted sources of information for patients' vaccination decisions. This study therefore investigated the association between believing in COVID-19-related conspiracy narratives and physicians' own COVID-19 vaccination status and their recommendation behavior for COVID-19 and other vaccines (e.g., HPV or flu). In a cross-sectional survey among German physicians (N = 602, April 2022) two conspiracy narratives were assessed, stating that the coronavirus is a hoax or that it is human-made. Additional control variables included trust in health institutions, the rejection of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) and demographic variables. Hierarchical regressions indicated that greater belief in the conspiracy narrative claiming that the coronavirus is a hoax was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake and fewer COVID-19 vaccination recommendations among physicians. The results for recommendation behavior remain robust even when controlling for other variables. Contrary to our assumption, believing that the coronavirus is human-made was not related to vaccination status nor vaccine recommendation behavior. In conclusion, believing in conspiracy narratives that question the existence and thus also the danger of the virus is an important independent predictor of vaccine hesitancy among physicians that should be addressed in future public health interventions.

Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Providers During the First 10 Months of Vaccine Availability: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers (HCPs)-including nurses-have played important roles in the vaccination effort. It is expected that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCPs has numerous consequences; however, the scope of these consequences and their impacts on providers, patients, and the broader healthcare system remained unclear.

PURPOSE

To identify existing and emerging evidence to understand the state of knowledge of the consequences of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCPs.

METHODS

A scoping review was completed based upon the JBI scoping review methodology. The databases searched included OVID Medline, EBSCOhost CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, ProQuest APA PsycInfo, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The final literature search was completed on June 2, 2022. Studies were screened and retrieved based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria using Covidence reference management software. Data extraction followed criteria recommended in the JBI scoping review framework with additional relevant variables identified by the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 33 sources were included in the review. Consequences of HCP COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were grouped under three themes and seven subthemes. Consequences affecting HCPs included health-related, psychosocial, and employment-related consequences. Consequences affecting patients pertained to COVID-19 vaccination communication and COVID-19 vaccination practices of HCPs. Consequences to the healthcare system involved consequences to coworkers and employment/attendance/staffing-related consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare provider COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was found to have numerous consequences. By understanding the scope and extent of these consequences, healthcare leaders, researchers, and HCPs can work together to protect providers, patients, and healthcare systems.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions of challenges in vaccine communication and training needs: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) can play an important role in encouraging patients and their caregivers to be vaccinated. The objective of this qualitative study was to investigate HCPs' perspectives on challenges in vaccine communication and unmet training needs in this domain.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 HCPs (mainly nurses and physicians) with vaccination roles (23 in England; 18 in France), gathering information on: (1) HCPs' approach to vaccine conversations with patients; (2) Challenges of communicating about vaccines; (3) Vaccine-related training and learning resources available to HCPs, and; (4) HCPs' training needs around vaccine communication.

RESULTS

HCPs described a range of communication experiences that indicated insufficient time, information, and skills to confidently navigate difficult conversations with vaccine-hesitant patients. Communication skills were especially important to avoid conflict that could potentially damage the patient-provider relationship. Some HCPs interviewed had received communication training, but for most, this training was not specific to vaccination. Although general communication skills were transferable to vaccine conversations, most HCPs welcomed specific training and informational resources to support countering patients' misconceptions or misinformation about vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs would benefit from training tailored to address vaccine communication with patients, and this should be part of a systemic approach that also provides time and space to have effective vaccine conversations.

Vaccine communication strategies among healthcare workers as a reflection of the Israeli Ministry of Health's communication strategies before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Healthcare workers play a central role in communicating information to the public regarding vaccines. Most of the literature has focused on healthcare workers' hesitancy and doubts about getting the flu vaccine themselves. However, few studies have dealt with how they perceive their role in communicating information regarding vaccines, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives

(1) To identify the communication strategies used by the Israeli Ministry of Health regarding vaccines during epidemic crises (before and after the COVID-19 pandemic); (2) To identify the communication strategies used by healthcare workers regarding vaccines before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A qualitative study based on in-depth interviews was conducted among healthcare workers and used a semi-structured protocol as a research tool. A total of 18 healthcare workers were sampled using purposeful and snowball sampling.

Results

Despite healthcare workers' perception that there has been a decrease in trust in the Israeli Ministry of Health among the public following the COVID-19 outbreak, they still rely on the Israeli Ministry of Health as their primary source of information and use the same communication strategies (such as fear appeals and correcting information) as of the Israeli Ministry of Health to communicate with the public, healthcare providers, and other relevant stakeholders.

Conclusion

Healthcare workers have been shaped by the professional socialization processes within the health system, leading to a predominant reliance on established communication strategies and informational channels. This reliance underscores the importance of evolving these methods to better engage with the public. To address this, there is a compelling need to innovate and adopt new communication techniques that emphasize effective dialogue and transparent interactions. By doing so, healthcare professionals can ensure that their outreach is not only informative but also responsive to the diverse needs and preferences of the community.

Healthcare Providers' and Pregnant People's Preferences for a Preventive to Protect Infants from Serious Illness Due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus

We assessed the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive characteristics on the intentions of pregnant people and healthcare providers (HCPs) to protect infants with a maternal vaccine or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Pregnant people and HCPs who treated pregnant people and/or infants were recruited via convenience sample from a general research panel to complete a cross-sectional, web-based survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) wherein respondents chose between hypothetical RSV preventive profiles varying on five attributes (effectiveness, preventive type [maternal vaccine vs. mAb], injection recipient/timing, type of medical visit required to receive the injection, and duration of protection during RSV season) and a no-preventive option. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise was included to explore the impact of additional attributes on preventive preferences. Data were collected between October and November 2022. Attribute-level preference weights and relative importance (RI) were estimated. Overall, 992 pregnant people and 310 HCPs participated. A preventive (vs. none) was chosen 89.2% (pregnant people) and 96.0% (HCPs) of the time (DCE). Effectiveness was most important to preventive choice for pregnant people (RI = 48.0%) and HCPs (RI = 41.7%); all else equal, pregnant people (RI = 5.5%) and HCPs (RI = 7.2%) preferred the maternal vaccine over mAbs, although preventive type had limited influence on choice. Longer protection, protection starting at birth or the beginning of RSV season, and use for both pre-term and full-term babies were ranked highest in importance (BWS). Pregnant people and HCPs strongly preferred a preventive to protect infants against RSV (vs. none), underscoring the need to incorporate RSV preventives into routine care.

Trust matters: The Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe Study

This article presents the design of a seven-country study focusing on childhood vaccines, Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe (VAX-TRUST), developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study consists of (a) situation analysis of vaccine hesitancy (examination of individual, socio-demographic and macro-level factors of vaccine hesitancy and analysis of media coverage on vaccines and vaccination and (b) participant observation and in-depth interviews of healthcare professionals and vaccine-hesitant parents. These analyses were used to design interventions aimed at increasing awareness on the complexity of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals involved in discussing childhood vaccines with parents. We present the selection of countries and regions, the conceptual basis of the study, details of the data collection and the process of designing and evaluating the interventions, as well as the potential impact of the study. Laying out our research design serves as an example of how to translate complex public health issues into social scientific study and methods.

Attitudes and practices to adult vaccination among physicians before and after COVID-19 pandemic in the United Arab Emirates

Introduction

Vaccination remains underutilised worldwide with low vaccine uptake rates across the board with many adults remaining unprotected. Across the Arab world, attitudes towards vaccines vary but high rates of vaccine hesitancy have been found. This study aims to explore the adult vaccination attitudes and practices by physicians in the UAE, both before and after the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Methodology

This cross-sectional, descriptive study used convenience and snowball sampling to collect comprehensive data from UAE physicians. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in two stages: the first (pre-COVID-19 vaccines) between the months of June and October 2020 and the second between the months of November 2022 and March 2023.

Results

1000 responses, 500 from each time period, were collected. Nearly a third were family physicians or internists with more than 70% of the physicians working in governmental hospitals. 95% agreed that vaccines are safe in both cohorts but 74.4% reported not having enough time to advise about vaccines. 80.8% of physicians in the 2022 cohort reported safety concerns as the most common reason for patients to refuse vaccines. The most recommended vaccines were influenza (68.6%), Hepatitis B (66.0%) and HPV (61.4%), with pneumococcal coming in close at 57.8%. Family medicine physicians showed the highest utilisation of preventive practices across both cohorts. Nearly half of all family medicine physicians did not regularly evaluate both the influenza and general immunisation status of their patients. 54.6% of physicians reported having patients with VPDs in the last five years (not including COVID-19) in 2022.

Conclusion

Physicians have overly positive attitudes, but their practices reflect a more superficial appreciation of vaccines and lack of initiative. Physicians need to adopt a pro-vaccine stance, armed with the proper tools and the right mentality and beliefs.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase healthcare workers' adherence to vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 1993 to 2022

BackgroundVaccination adherence among healthcare workers (HCWs) is fundamental for the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in healthcare. This safeguards HCWs' well-being, prevents transmission of infections to vulnerable patients and contributes to public health.AimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe interventions meant to increase HCWs' adherence to vaccination and estimate the effectiveness of these interventions.MethodsWe searched literature in eight databases and performed manual searches in relevant journals and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The study population included any HCW with potential occupational exposure to VPDs. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies presenting interventions aimed at increasing HCWs' adherence to vaccination against VPDs. The post-intervention vaccination adherence rate was set as the main outcome. We included the effect of interventions in the random-effects and subgroup meta-analyses.ResultsThe systematic review considered 48 studies on influenza and Tdap vaccination from database and manual searches, and 43 were meta-analysed. A statistically significant, positive effect was seen in multi-component interventions in randomised controlled trials (relative risk (RR) = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13-1.66) and in observational studies (RR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58). Vaccination adherence rate was higher in community care facilities (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.49-1.68) than in hospitals (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.76-2.05).ConclusionInterventions aimed at increasing HCWs' adherence to vaccination against VPDs are effective, especially multi-component ones. Future research should determine the most effective framework of interventions for each setting, using appropriate study design for their evaluation, and should compare intervention components to understand their contribution to the effectiveness.

Motivational interview training improves self-efficacy of GP interns in vaccination consultations: A study using the Pro-VC-Be to measure vaccine confidence determinants

Immunization-specific motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered communication style used to encourage internal motivation for attitudinal and behavioral change, can provide healthcare professionals (HCPs) with the skills and practice required to respond to patients' doubts and concerns related to vaccines. We sought to assess the impact of an MI-training of General Practitioner (GP) interns on the psychosocial determinants of their vaccine confidence and behaviors. French GP interns participated in a virtual three-day MI-workshop in southeastern France. We used the validated Pro-VC-Be questionnaire - before and after the MI-workshop spanning over three months - to measure the evolution of these determinants. Scores before and after workshop trainings were compared in pairs. Participants' scores for commitment to vaccination (+10.5 ± 20.5, P = .001), perceived self-efficacy (+36.0 ± 25.8, P < .0001), openness to patients (+18.7 ± 17.0, P < .0001), and trust in authorities (+9.5 ± 17.2, P = 0.01) significantly increased after the training sessions, but not the score for confidence in vaccines (+1.5 ± 11.9, P = .14). The effect sizes of the four score improvements were moderate to large, with self-efficacy and openness to patients having the largest effect sizes (P = .83 and 0.78, respectively). This study provides evidence that certain determinants of overall vaccine confidence in HCPs, reflected respectively in the openness to patients and self-efficacy scores of the Pro-VC-Be, improve after immunization MI-training workshops. Incorporating immunization-specific MI-training in the curriculum for HCPs could improve several necessary skills to improve HCP-patient relationships and be useful for vaccination and other healthcare services.

Changes in Local and Systemic Adverse Effects following Primary and Booster Immunisation against COVID-19 in an Observational Cohort of Dutch Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®)

In healthcare workers (HCWs) and in the general population, fear of adverse effects is among the main reasons behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We present data on self-reported adverse effects from a large cohort of HCWs who underwent primary (N = 470) and booster (N = 990) mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. We described general patterns in, and predictors of self-reported adverse effect profiles. Adverse effects following immunisation (AEFI) were reported more often after the second dose of primary immunisation than after the first dose, but there was no further increase in adverse effects following the booster round. Self-reported severity of systemic adverse effects was less following booster immunisation. Prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a significant predictor of AEFI following primary immunisation, but was no longer a predictor after booster vaccination. Compared to other studies reporting specifically on adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in healthcare workers, we have a relatively large cohort size, and are the first to compare adverse effects between different rounds of vaccination. Compared to studies in the general population, we have a considerably homogenous population. Insights in AEFI following primary and booster vaccinations may help in addressing vaccine hesitancy, both in HCWs and in the general population.

Novel COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, and associated factors, amongst medical students: a scoping review

Medical students are likely to be exposed to COVID-19 patients so achieving high vaccination coverage rates for this group of healthcare workers is important, as is their potential as vaccination role models. The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the current literature to determine the rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, and associated factors, amongst medical students. Systematic searches of the Medline Ovid, Embase, PubMed, and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC) online databases was conducted for relevant articles with keywords: 'COVID-19', 'vaccine hesitancy & acceptance' and 'medical students'. Articles were included for review if they reported the rates of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance, and associated factors, amongst medical students. Of the 258 articles identified, 52 met the inclusion criteria and underwent full-text review. Rates of vaccine hesitancy ranged from 5.4-86.7%, with generally positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. The main factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines due to their accelerated development, being a pre-clinical medical student, and low perceived personal risk of COVID-19 infection. Inconsistencies were found for the influence of gender on attitudes towards vaccinations. Previous vaccination behaviours were predictive of willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Knowledge about COVID-19 vaccinations and their importance was found to be deficient amongst vaccine hesitant medical students. Generally, medical students express low levels of vaccine hesitancy. However, due to the variability in the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy across different populations and the dynamic and contextual nature of hesitancy, it is recommended that vaccination intent and associated attitudes are monitored on a longitudinal basis. It is important to map vaccine hesitancy at a local level to allow medical schools to develop strategies to encourage vaccination specific to their school's needs.

Using the COM-B framework to elucidate facilitators and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women: a qualitative study

Since April 2021, COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended for pregnant women. Despite this, COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this group is low compared to the non-pregnant population of childbearing age. Our aim was to understand barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Northern Ireland using the COM-B framework, and so to make recommendations for public health interventions. The COM-B proposes that human behaviour is influenced by the extent to which a person has the capability, opportunity, and motivation to enact that behaviour. Understanding the factors underpinning behaviour through this lens helps discern what needs to change to change behaviour, therefore supporting the development of targeted interventions.This study consisted of eight semi-structured interviews with new/expectant mothers who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant since April 2021, and a focus group with five participants who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant. Interview and focus group data were analysed using semi-deductive reflexive thematic analysis framed by a subtle realist approach. The COM-B was used to categorise codes and subthemes were developed within each COM-B construct.Within Psychological Capability, subthemes captured the need for consistent and reliable COVID-19 vaccine information and access to balanced and jargon-free, risk-benefit information that is tailored to the pregnant individual. The behaviour/opinions of family, friends, and local healthcare providers had a powerful influence on COVID-19 vaccine decisions (Social Opportunity). Integrating the COVID-19 vaccine as part of routine antenatal pathways was believed to support access and sense of familiarity (Physical Opportunity). Participants valued health autonomy, however experienced internal conflict driven by concerns about long-term side effects for their baby (Reflective Motivation). Feelings of fear, lack of empathy from healthcare providers, and anticipated guilt commonly underpinned indecision as to whether to get the vaccine (Automatic Motivation).Our study highlighted that the choice to accept a vaccine during pregnancy generates internal conflict and worry. Several participants cited their concern was primarily around the safety for their baby. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a significant part when it comes to decision making about COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant women. HCPs and pregnant women should be involved in the development of interventions to improve the delivery and communication of information.

Partisan self-identification predicts attitudes of South Dakota nurses toward COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers

Objectives

Nurses are at greater risk of infection from COVID-19. However, mistrust of the vaccine exists even among this group. In the United States, the government implemented a vaccine mandate for health care workers to increase vaccination rates. This study investigated the drivers of nurses' attitudes toward the mandate.

Methods

We fielded a survey to study the attitudes of nurses toward COVID-19 vaccine mandate for HCWs. We contacted nurses in South Dakota, United States, based on the information from the South Dakota Board of Nursing. The survey was open in June and July 2022. We conducted a multivariate regression analysis to identify the factors that predict attitudes toward this regulation.

Results

We received 1,084 responses. Results of regression analysis showed statistically significant relationships between partisan self-identification, evangelical identity, gender, and COVID-19 vaccination status and support for COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. Age, time with patients, positive COIVD-19 test in the last year, education, and nurse classification variables were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The same factors that drive people's attitudes toward COVID-19 mitigation policies also explain nurses' attitudes toward a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic is present also among nurses. Health care officials should be mindful of the influence of these biases as they evaluate the vaccine mandate and develop new regulations.

Endorsement of alternative medicine and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: A cross-sectional study in four European countries

Vaccine hesitancy has become a threat to public health, especially as it is a phenomenon that has also been observed among healthcare professionals. In this study, we analyzed the relationship between endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and vaccination attitudes and behaviors among healthcare professionals, using a cross-sectional sample of physicians with vaccination responsibilities from four European countries: Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France (total N = 2,787). Our results suggest that, in all the participating countries, CAM endorsement is associated with lower frequency of vaccine recommendation, lower self-vaccination rates, and being more open to patients delaying vaccination, with these relationships being mediated by distrust in vaccines. A latent profile analysis revealed that a profile characterized by higher-than-average CAM endorsement and lower-than-average confidence and recommendation of vaccines occurs, to some degree, among 19% of the total sample, although these percentages varied from one country to another: 23.72% in Germany, 17.83% in France, 9.77% in Finland, and 5.86% in Portugal. These results constitute a call to consider health care professionals' attitudes toward CAM as a factor that could hinder the implementation of immunization campaigns.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: Cross-sectional survey data from four European countries

Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.

Measles and Varicella Vaccination Program in a Hospital: Implementation and Impact on Contact Tracing

Healthcare workers are recommended to get vaccinated against measles and varicella. This study aims to describe the implementation process of a measles and varicella vaccination program and report on the reduction in the number of susceptible healthcare workers exposed to measles, varicella, and disseminated herpes zoster at a tertiary hospital. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model was used to describe the vaccination program implemented from October 2015 to September 2018. The number of exposed, reviewed, and susceptible healthcare workers during contact tracing for exposure to (a) measles and (b) varicella and disseminated herpes zoster in 2016, 2017, and 2018 is reported. A total of 6770 (95%) out of 7083 healthcare workers completed their immunization review by 2018. In 2016, 20 (10%) out of 198 healthcare workers exposed to measles were considered susceptible. In 2018, no one was found susceptible out of the 51 staff members exposed to measles (p < 0.01). For exposure to varicella and disseminated herpes zoster, seven (5%) out of 154 exposed healthcare workers were susceptible in 2016. In comparison, only two (1%) out of 377 exposed healthcare workers in 2018 were susceptible (p < 0.01). The vaccination program effectively reduced number of healthcare workers susceptible to measles, varicella, and disseminated zoster.

"I Want People to Be Able to Make an Informed Choice": How Quebec naturopaths discuss vaccination in their practice

Health care providers' recommendations can play an important role in individuals' vaccination decisions. Despite being one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), naturopathy is understudied in relation to vaccination decisions. We sought to address this gap through this study of vaccination perspectives of naturopathy practitioners in the province of Quebec, Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 naturopaths. Thematic analysis was conducted. Main themes were developed deductively (i.e., based on prior literature) and expanded through inductive coding of the data. Participants noted that they discuss vaccination in their practice, but only when clients asked questions or wanted advice. Naturopaths described refraining from explicitly recommending for or against vaccination. Instead, they focus on empowering their clients to make their own informed decision regarding vaccination. Most participants noted that they direct clients towards sources of information so that clients could decide for themselves, but some mentioned they discussed with clients what they considered to be risks associated with vaccination, as well as its benefits. These discussions were framed through a personalized and individual approach with clients.

Barriers and Facilitators to COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Polish Patients: A Qualitative Interview Study

The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is influenced by a variety of individual and contextual factors. However, there are very few studies that analyse individual vaccination decisions using a qualitative methodology. To close this gap, we conducted a qualitative interview study to examine the opinions and experiences with the vaccine among patients previously hospitalized due to COVID-19, including barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake. An exploratory qualitative study, using semi-structured telephone interviews, was conducted among 22 patients admitted for COVID-19 in Poland in 2022. Opinions of patients previously hospitalized with COVID-19 on vaccination were varied. Barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake stemmed from concerns about vaccine safety, patients' religious beliefs, and negative stories. High disease severity and anxiety over personal and family health were important arguments in favour of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The study findings indicated the need for ongoing health education by healthcare staff as well as coordination and integration of multi-sectoral institutional measures regarding COVID-19 prevention strategies as well as increased public health initiatives on social media and engagement of community leaders for awareness about vaccines and vaccination. It is crucial to build trust in COVID-19 vaccinations among the general public by disseminating reliable information through trustworthy and credible sources. However, it ought to be emphasised that, regardless of the measures taken, some individuals will remain unconvinced about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

International adaptation and validation of the Pro-VC-Be: measuring the psychosocial determinants of vaccine confidence in healthcare professionals in European countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in vaccination; those with low confidence in vaccines are less likely to recommend them to their patients and to be vaccinated themselves. The study's purpose was to adapt and validate long- and short-form versions of the International Professionals' Vaccine Confidence and Behaviors (I-Pro-VC-Be) questionnaire to measure psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccine confidence and their associations with vaccination behaviors in European countries.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After the original French-language Pro-VC-Be was culturally adapted and translated, HCPs involved in vaccination (mainly GPs and pediatricians) across Germany, Finland, France, and Portugal completed a cross-sectional online survey in 2022. A 10-factor multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) of the long-form (10 factors comprising 34 items) tested for measurement invariance across countries. Modified multiple Poisson regressions tested the criterion validity of both versions.

RESULTS

2,748 HCPs participated. The 10-factor structure fit was acceptable to good everywhere. The final MG-CFA model confirmed strong factorial invariance and showed very good fit. The long- and short-form I-Pro-VC-Be had good criterion validity with vaccination behaviors.

CONCLUSION

This study validates the I-Pro-VC-Be among HCPs in four European countries; including long- and short-form tools for use in research and public health.

COVID-19 vaccination intention and activation among health care system employees: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Achieving high COVID-19 vaccination rates among employees is necessary to prevent outbreaks in health care settings. The goal of the study was to produce actionable and timely evidence about factors underlying the intention and decisions to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine by employees.

METHODS

The study was conducted from December 2020 - May 2021 with employees from a VA health care system in Southeastern US. The study used a convergent mixed methods design comprising two main activities: a cross-sectional survey conducted prior to COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and semi-structured interviews conducted 4-6 months after vaccine distribution. Data were collected about participant characteristics, vaccination intention prior to distribution, vaccination decision post-distribution, determinants of vaccination intention and decision, activating factors, sources of information and intervention needs. Data from the survey and interviews were analyzed separately and integrated narratively in the discussion.

RESULTS

Prior to vaccine distribution, 77% of employees wanted to be vaccinated. Post vaccine distribution, we identified 5 distinct decision-making groups: 1) vaccine believers who actively sought vaccination and included those sometimes described as "immunization advocates", 2) go along to get along (GATGA) individuals who got vaccinated but did not actively seek it, 3) cautious acceptors who got the COVID-19 vaccine after some delay, 4) fence sitters who remained uncertain about getting vaccinated, and 5) vaccine refusers who actively rejected the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants identifying with Black or multiple races were more likely to express hesitancy in their vaccination intention.

CONCLUSION

The findings of our study highlight distinct decision-making profiles associated with COVID-19 vaccination among employees of a VA health care system, and provide tailored recommendations to reduce vaccine hesitancy in this population.

Racial/Ethnic Variances in COVID-19 Inoculation among Southern California Healthcare Workers

Healthcare workers (HCWs) from minoritized communities are a critical partner in moving vaccine-hesitant populations toward vaccination, yet a significant number of these HCWs are delaying or deciding against their own COVID-19 vaccinations. Our study aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of vaccine hesitancy among racially and ethnically minoritized HCWs and to describe factors associated with vaccine non-acceptance. Analysis of a sub-sample of racially and ethnically minoritized HCWs (N = 1131), who participated in a cross-sectional study at two large Southern California medical centers, was conducted. Participants completed an online survey consisting of demographics, work setting and clinical role, influenza vaccination history, COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, personal COVID-19 exposure, diagnosis, and impact on those closest to them. While overall most HCWs were vaccinated (84%), 28% of Black, 19% of Hispanic, and 8% of Asian American HCWs were vaccine-hesitant. Age, education level, occupation, history of COVID-19, and COVID-19 related knowledge were predictive of vaccine hesitancy. We found significant variations in COVID-19 related knowledge and reasons for vaccine hesitancy among Black (governmental mistrust), Hispanic (preference for physiological immunity), and Asian-American HCWs (concern about side effects) who were vaccine-hesitant or not. Our findings highlight racial and ethnic differences in vaccine-hesitancy and barriers to vaccination among HCWs of color. This study indicates the necessity of targeted interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy that are mindful of the disparities in knowledge and access and differences between and among racial and ethnic groups.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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