Factors associated with vaccine intention in adults living in England who either did not want or had not yet decided to be vaccinated against COVID-19

Using an inferior decoy alternative to nudge COVID-19 vaccination

Optimizing vaccine uptake is a public health challenge that requires the implementation of effective strategies. The asymmetric dominance (or decoy) effect describes the increasing likelihood of selecting an option when a clearly inferior alternative is offered. Therefore, we aimed to test the impact of offering decoy alternatives-less convenient vaccination appointments-on vaccination intentions. Participants aged 18-33 years, residing in England, and initially not intending to get vaccinated, completed three online experiments. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control or an experimental condition in each experiment. The asymmetrically dominated options were: an appointment in two weeks at a distant location (experiment 1); a later time at the participant's local GP, pharmacy, or community centre (experiment 2); and a later time at a distant location (experiment 3). The primary outcome was vaccination intention, while secondary outcomes included an active interest in reading additional information about the vaccination procedure, perceived difficulty and cognitive effort. Initial analysis revealed no evidence of an asymmetric dominance effect. However, further subgroup analysis, supported by formative research, indicated that ensuring decoy alternatives are clearly perceived as inferior could enhance the effectiveness of this approach for certain individuals.

Encouraging COVID-19 vaccination by focusing on anticipated affect: A scoping review

Objective

This study reviewed studies of the anticipated affect related with COVID-19 vaccination to understand gaps in currently available studies and practice implications.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and other multiple databases for English language articles of studies that investigated COVID-19 vaccination related anticipated affects.

Results

We identified seventeen studies. Thirteen studies focused anticipated regret from inaction (i.e., not vaccinated). Other studies focused anticipated regret from action (i.e., vaccinated), guilt from inaction, pride from action, and positive feelings from action. Eleven studies showed that anticipated regret from inaction was significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior or intention. Three of the 11 studies showed that anticipated regret from inaction was more strongly associated with vaccination behavior or intention than cognitive belief.

Conclusion

Most studies showed that positive associations between anticipated regret and COVID-19 vaccination outcomes. The use of messages that target cognitive beliefs as well as those that appeal to anticipated affect may be effective to promote COVID-19 vaccination. However, most studies employed a cross-sectional design and examined negative affect. Future studies should adopt an experimental design as well as examine positive affect.

Association of COVID-19 information media, providers, and content with vaccine uptake among Tokyo residents

To elucidate appropriate ways to induce behavior that prevents the spread of infection, we examined the association between COVID-19 vaccination and COVID-19-related information after more than 85% of the population had been vaccinated. Nonprobability quota sampling was used to recruit 2000 Tokyo residents as participants. The association between previous vaccine uptake and how much people thought they were affected by each of nine media, seven providers, and four content types of information was assessed using an online survey form. Subjective influence was assessed, and order logistic regression analyses were performed. We further calculated standardized partial regression coefficients for the independent variables. The results showed that while people did not think they were strongly affected by any COVID-19 information, significant positive associations between 9 of 20 variables, and significant negative associations between 7 of 20 variables were observed with vaccine uptake. The regression analysis involving the interaction terms between independent variables and sex showed a significant association between vaccine uptake and only daily conversation. Simple slope analysis showed a stronger positive association for females than for males. Regression analysis with interaction terms between each independent variable and age showed a significant association between vaccine uptake and print newspapers, social networking services, prefectural governors, family/relatives, accessibility, side effects, and supply visibility. Simple slope analysis also showed that the positive association between the subjective influence of newspapers and vaccine uptake was observed only for older people (≥69 years), and that of prefectural governors was more significant for older than younger people (≤32 years). In contrast, the trustworthy information provided by family/relatives was positively associated with vaccine uptake only for younger people. These results suggest that careful consideration must be given to the differences in age and sex to provide appropriate information that motivates Tokyo residents to receive vaccination during COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors influencing staff attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination in care homes in England: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people living and working in UK care homes causing high mortality rates. Vaccinating staff members and residents is considered the most effective intervention to reduce infection and its transmission rates. However, uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in care homes was variable. We sought to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in care home staff to inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake and inform future preparedness.

METHODS

Twenty care home staff including managerial and administrative staff, nurses, healthcare practitioners and support staff from nine care homes across England participated in semi-structured telephone interviews (March-June 2021) exploring attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing uptake. We used thematic analysis to generate themes which were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify potential intervention strategies to address identified influences.

RESULTS

Enablers to vaccine uptake included the willingness to protect care home residents, staff and family/friends from infection and the belief that vaccination provided a way back to normality (reflective motivation); convenience of vaccination and access to accurate information (physical opportunity); and a supporting social environment around them favouring vaccination (social opportunity). Barriers included fears about side-effects (automatic motivation); a lack of trust due to the quick release of the vaccine (reflective motivation); and feeling pressurised to accept vaccination if mandatory (automatic motivation).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified influences on COVID-19 vaccine uptake by care home staff that can inform the implementation of future vaccination programmes. Strategies likely to support uptake include information campaigns and facilitating communication between staff and managers to openly discuss concerns regarding possible vaccination side effects. Freedom of choice played an important role in the decision to be vaccinated suggesting that the decision to mandate vaccination may have unintended behavioural consequences.

Addressing message fatigue for encouraging COVID-19 vaccination

During the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, health communication researchers and practitioners should be aware of the unintended effects of message fatigue. Message fatigue is a motivational state caused by repeated and prolonged exposure to similar health-related messages that induces resistance to health behaviors. Messages encouraging COVID-19 vaccination tend to focus on scientific evidence and efficacy information. However, prolonged exposure to similarly framed repeated pro-COVID-19 vaccination messages may cause message fatigue, generate psychological reactance, and lead to ineffective persuasive outcomes. Scholars of message fatigue argue that health communication practitioners should select a less common frame to reduce fatigue responses and increase favorable attitudes toward message recommendations. Entering the second year since COVID-19 vaccination has begun, to reduce message fatigue, future pro-COVID-19 vaccination communication should increase the diversity of messages different than the frequently used types. This opinion piece proposes alternative dissemination of cognitive, affective, narrative, and non-narrative pro-COVID-19 vaccination messages.

Association between trust in COVID-19 information sources and engaging in infection prevention behaviors in Japan: A longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

We examined changes in people's trust in information sources in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic over the course of 1 year and investigated longitudinal associations between trust in such sources and engaging in infection prevention behaviors.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal survey of Japanese populations under a declared state of emergency at two time points, August 2020 and August 2021. We surveyed sociodemographic data, seven Trust in COVID-19 information sources and six COVID-19 preventive behaviors.

RESULTS

In all, 784 participants completed the two surveys. Physicians were the most consistently trusted information source over the 1-year period. We identified three preventive behaviors that were positively associated with trust in physicians as an information source (social distancing, wearing masks, and washing hands with soap), four preventive behaviors that were positively associated with trusting infected patients (social distancing, using ventilation, wearing masks, and using hand sanitizer), and one preventative behavior that was negatively associated with trust in government (avoiding closed spaces).

CONCLUSION

In the ongoing pandemic, information from physicians and patients may encourage people to engage in long-term preventive behaviors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians and patients should be promoted as trusted and behavior influencing sources of information during the pandemic.

Scale Development for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy by Integration of Socio-Demographic and Psychological Factors

Vaccination is the most cost-effective way to maintain population health. However, it can only be effective if widespread acceptance is held. The efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines depends on their favor. When countries start to vaccinate their citizens, there is a certain level of skepticism about the effectiveness of the vaccines. The hesitancy study on vaccines has gained momentum following the pandemic. However, few studies have examined the link between the psychological and sociodemographic factors influencing the fit. This paper proposes integrating the concepts of the information systems success and stimulus-organism-response into a cognitive fit theory framework to explore the integration of psychological and sociodemographic factors in the receivers' reactions (n = 1510). This study analyses the factors that influence the hesitancy of vaccines and the public's refusal in Asia and Europe. Receivers' reactions were assessed to various stimuli and we explored the link between psychological and sociodemographic elements and the concept of fit. Two surveys were conducted following the scale development of Mackenzie. The first was to develop the fit scale, while the second was to validate the fit scale. The results of the second survey were analyzed using structural equation modelling. The results indicate that the scale's fit development is valid and reliable. The quality of the vaccine information, the psychological characteristics of the vaccine system, and vaccine receivers' satisfaction are also beneficial factors for emotional and cognitive fit. Maintaining the vaccines' quality and efficiency can help improve the fit between sociodemographic and psychological characteristics. It can also enhance receivers' satisfaction and encourage continued vaccine administration. This study is regarded as one of the first to examine and develop an emotional and cognitive fit scale for practitioners and researchers.

How Well the Constructs of Health Belief Model Predict Vaccination Intention: A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Primary Series and Booster Vaccines

This systematic review synthesizes the findings of quantitative studies examining the relationships between Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. We searched PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and identified 109 eligible studies. The overall vaccination intention rate was 68.19%. Perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues to action were the three most frequently demonstrated predictors of vaccination intention for both primary series and booster vaccines. For booster doses, the influence of susceptibility slightly increased, but the impact of severity, self-efficacy, and cues to action on vaccination intention declined. The impact of susceptibility increased, but severity's effect declined sharply from 2020 to 2022. The influence of barriers slightly declined from 2020 to 2021, but it skyrocketed in 2022. Conversely, the role of self-efficacy dipped in 2022. Susceptibility, severity, and barriers were dominant predictors in Saudi Arabia, but self-efficacy and cues to action had weaker effects in the USA. Susceptibility and severity had a lower impact on students, especially in North America, and barriers had a lower impact on health care workers. However, cues to action and self-efficacy had a dominant influence among parents. The most prevalent modifying variables were age, gender, education, income, and occupation. The results show that HBM is useful in predicting vaccine intention.

Using the precaution adoption process model to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine in England

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are critical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our understanding of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19.

PURPOSE

To use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England.

METHODS

An online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making.

RESULTS

Of the total 2,004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1,415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London).

CONCLUSIONS

Public health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster.

Associations between Vaccination Behavior and Trust in Information Sources Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines under Emergency Approval in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study

We examined the association between COVID-19 vaccination behavior and trust in COVID-19-related information sources during the initial period of COVID-19 vaccination in Japan. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in August 2021, 5 months after the start of COVID-19 vaccination for the general public under emergency approval. Participants were recruited using non-probability quota sampling from among Japanese residents who were under a declared state of emergency. Sociodemographic data, vaccination behavior, and levels of trust in eight media sources of information and three interpersonal information sources were assessed using an online survey form. A total of 784 participants completed the survey. The results of multiple logistic regression analysis showed that age, household income, underlying medical conditions, and living with family were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior. Regarding COVID-19 vaccine information sources, trust in public health experts as a source of media information and primary care physicians as a source of interpersonal information showed significantly positive associations with COVID-19 vaccination behavior (odds ratio [OR] = 1.157, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.017-1.31; OR = 1.076; 95% CI 1.006-1.150, respectively). Increasing trust in public health experts and primary care physicians and disseminating vaccine information from these sources will help promote vaccination under emergency approval.

U.S. adults' reasons for changing their degree of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19

Introduction

COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce the risk of complications and hospitalizations due to this virus. When COVID-19 vaccines first became commercially available, roughly 30% of U.S. adults reported being hesitant to receive these newly developed vaccines, and 15% said they would not receive the vaccine. However, by May 2021, 19% of adults were vaccine-hesitant, and 13% refused to vaccinate against COVID-19. It is critical to understand why adults' degree of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 changed over time to plan for future pandemics and vaccination campaigns.

Methods

We conducted two waves of survey research over five months (January and May 2021) with a panel of 890 U.S. adults. One survey question assessed willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. The response option included a slider scale ranging from 0 (signifying complete unwillingness) to 10 (complete willingness). We asked participants whose willingness score changed by more than one point to report their rationale for their change in perceptions. We conducted a conventional content analysis on all qualitative responses.

Results

We analyzed qualitative responses for 289 participants, 54.7% of whom had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 by May 2021. Among those who remained unvaccinated, 36.1% reported increased willingness to vaccinate. The most commonly cited reasons for becoming more willing to receive the vaccine include believing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, protecting against the pandemic, and desiring to return to pre-pandemic life. Reasons for increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy include vaccine safety concerns, the low perceived need for the vaccine, distrust in how COVID-19 vaccines are made and of larger institutions such as the government and pharmaceutical companies, and concerns about vaccine effectiveness.

Conclusion

Findings illuminate the rationale behind individuals' changes in their degree of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. It is critical to incorporate these considerations in future vaccine rollout initiatives to increase the public's vaccine confidence.

Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study systematically analyzed the literature using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a theoretical framework to examine the influence of its constructs on vaccination intention against COVID-19. Quantitative studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following the PRISMA guidelines. The average rate of COVID-19 vaccination intention was 73.19%, ranging from 31% to 88.86%. Attitude had the strongest association with vaccination intention (r₊ = 0.487, 95% CI: 0.368-0.590), followed by subjective norms (r₊ = 0.409, 95% CI: 0.300-0.507), and perceived behavioral control (r₊ = 0.286, 95% CI: 0.198-0.369). Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled effect sizes of TPB constructs on vaccination intention varied across geographic regions and study populations. Attitude had large effect sizes in Asia, Europe, and Oceania, especially among the adult general population, parents, and patients. Subjective norms had large effect sizes in Asia and Oceania, especially among parents and patients. Perceived behavioral control was the most dominant predictor of vaccination acceptance in Africa among patients. These findings suggest that TPB provides a useful framework for predicting intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Hence, public awareness and educational programs aimed at promoting COVID-19 vaccination intention should consider using TPB as a framework to achieve the goal.

"I'm luckier than everybody else!": Optimistic bias, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, vaccination status, and the link with the time spent online, anticipated regret, and the perceived threat

The catastrophic wave in the fall of 2021 drove Romania to the top of the list of dangerous COVID-19 infections, with the highest mortality rate in Europe. At the same time, Romania had one of the lowest vaccination rates. In this context, the present research aimed to explore the link between vaccination intention/status, optimistic bias, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, the time spent online, and vaccination (anticipated) regret. Our convenience sample was formed by 408 adults aged 18-63 years (M = 22.11, SD = 6.18, 69.9 % females), who were distributed into four groups: (1) non-vaccinated who definitely refused COVID-19 vaccination, (2) non-vaccinated who considered COVID-19 vaccination, (3) non-vaccinated who reported their absolute willingness to COVID-19 vaccination, and (4) people who were COVID-19 vaccinated. We conducted our analyses separately, depending on these groups (i.e., vaccination intentions/status). Data were collected using an online questionnaire between November 10, 2021, and January 03, 2022. In our cross-sectional approach, following correlation and ANOVA analyses, among the observed patterns were (1) the significant negative relation between optimism bias and the perceived COVID-19 threat; (2) the positive link between anticipated regret, post-vaccination regret, age, and conspiracy beliefs. We discuss our findings considering their contribution to health policies and practices.

Effect of communicating community immunity on COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant people from ethnically diverse backgrounds: an experimental vignette study in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Achieving high vaccination coverage is vital to the efforts of curbing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health and society. This study tested whether communicating the social benefit through community protection for friends and family members versus overall society, affects vaccination intention and perception among a sample enriched with respondents from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.

DESIGN

A web-based experimental survey was conducted. Eligible participants were individually randomised, with equal probability, to one of the three experimental vignettes.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited 512 (212 white, 300 ethnically diverse) vaccine-hesitant members from an online panel.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. The secondary outcome consisted of a behavioural measure in the form of active interest in reading more about the COVID-19 vaccine. Additional measures included the perceived importance and expected uptake in others, as well as the attitudes towards vaccination.

RESULTS

Logistic regression models did not show an effect of the messages on intentions for the overall sample (society: adjusted OR (aOR): 128, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.88 and friends and family: aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.94). The role of vaccination in achieving community immunity yielded higher vaccination intentions among study participants with white ethnic background (society: aOR: 1.94, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.51 and friends and family: aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.96), but not among respondents from ethnically diverse backgrounds (society: aOR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.58 and friends and family: aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73). The messages, however, did not affect the perceived importance of the vaccine, expected vaccination uptake and active interest in reading more about the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, although highlighting the social benefits of COVID-19 vaccinations can increase intentions among vaccine non-intenders, they are unlikely to address barriers among ethnically diverse communities.

COVID-19 mortality and deprivation: pandemic, syndemic, and endemic health inequalities

COVID-19 has exacerbated endemic health inequalities resulting in a syndemic pandemic of higher mortality and morbidity rates among the most socially disadvantaged. We did a scoping review to identify and synthesise published evidence on geographical inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates globally. We included peer-reviewed studies, from any country, written in English that showed any area-level (eg, neighbourhood, town, city, municipality, or region) inequalities in mortality by socioeconomic deprivation (ie, measured via indices of multiple deprivation: the percentage of people living in poverty or proxy factors including the Gini coefficient, employment rates, or housing tenure). 95 papers from five WHO global regions were included in the final synthesis. A large majority of the studies (n=86) found that COVID-19 mortality rates were higher in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage than in affluent areas. The subsequent discussion reflects on how the unequal nature of the pandemic has resulted from a syndemic of COVID-19 and endemic inequalities in chronic disease burden.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Health Professional Students: Cross-Sectional Data from the First Wave of the HOLISTIC Cohort Study

Vaccine hesitancy has been observed around the world, but there is a paucity of data among a broad range of U.S. health professional students. The goal of this report is to present findings about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among a cross-section of U.S. health professional students and determine if hesitancy varies by demographic characteristics, health science college, and other factors. A cross-sectional analysis of HOLISTIC Cohort Study participants enrolled from April 14 2021 to May 5 2021 at seven health sciences colleges in the University of Illinois Chicago was used. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to evaluate vaccine hesitancy items and identify domains. Among 555 health professional students, three domains (perceived benefit, trustworthiness, and risk) contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Significant differences were observed in the domains among students of different races as well as vaccination history. Compared to students in the College of Medicine, students in the Colleges of Applied Health Science (OR 0.43; CI [0.19–0.96]), Pharmacy (OR 0.38; CI [0.17–0.87]), Nursing (OR 0.35; CI [0.16–0.78]), and Social Work (OR 0.30; CI [0.11–0.78]) reported lower perceived benefit. Compared to students in the College of Medicine, students in the College of Applied Health Sciences (OR 0.39; CI [0.17–0.94]), Dentistry (OR 0.27; CI [0.10–0.76]), Nursing (OR 0.38; CI [0.16–0.94]), and Social work (OR 0.31; CI [0.11–0.86]) reported more trustworthiness and more concerns about risk (OR 2.80; CI [1.15–6.81] for College of Applied Health Sciences, OR 9.12; CI [2.80–29.75] for Dentistry, OR 3.77; CI [1.47–9.65] for Nursing, OR 3.14; CI [1.02–9.67] for Social Work). Our findings suggest the need for a tailored vaccination strategy among different subgroups of health professional students.