Determinants of seasonal influenza vaccination hesitancy among healthcare personnel: An integrative review

Healthcare Professionals' Discursive Constructions of Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Tale of Multiple Moralities

Healthcare professionals play a crucial role in addressing the concerns of vaccine-hesitant parents since they form a trusted source for vaccine-related information. An increasing body of evidence suggests that healthcare professionals are faced with complexities when navigating the sensitive topic of parental vaccine hesitancy, as they balance their own vaccine- and context-specific concerns with institutional and societal pressures to vaccinate. Furthermore, health choices, such as parental choices for childhood vaccination, are often linked to moralisation. Given the emphasis on effective communication with vaccine-hesitant parents in the patient-centred care literature, it is important to consider healthcare professionals' interpretations of parental vaccine hesitancy. Hence, a deeper understanding of how healthcare professionals make sense of, and moralise, childhood vaccination can help us understand how moralisation might appear in their communication with hesitant parents (in)directly. Drawing on a critical social-psychological framework for discourse analysis, this study analyses 39 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals in Flanders, Belgium, and presents the discursive patterns articulated by healthcare professionals on parental vaccine hesitancy. The findings elucidate how healthcare professionals perpetuate, or resist, moral discourse in their accounts of vaccine hesitancy by constructing five different interpretative repertoires, that is, a "good" or "bad" parenting repertoire, a freedom of choice repertoire, an individual risk-benefit repertoire, a public health repertoire, and an accessibility repertoire. Our study highlights the complexities healthcare professionals experience in negotiating vaccine hesitancy, as their understandings of vaccine hesitancy are affected by, and contribute to, existing moral dilemmas and dominant discourses surrounding health and parenting.

Nurses' attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative study (PROACTIVE-study)

AIM

To explore the attitudes of healthcare workers towards COVID-19 vaccines.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive design was used.

METHODS

Five focus groups were conducted between October and November 2021, with a total of 30 nurses from different contexts in Northern Italy. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: 'favourable', 'unsure' and 'contrary to' COVID-19 vaccines. The favourable position was underpinned by trust in science, research and vaccination; protection for themselves, their families, patients and the population; duty as professionals; necessity to set an example for others. Participants who were unsure had doubts about the composition, safety and efficacy of the vaccine and were sometimes afraid that media provided incomplete information. The main reason why nurses were against was the feeling that being forced to vaccinate perceived as blackmail. Favourable or unsure nurses struggled to deal with those who were against and developed a series of emotions that ranged from respect and attempt to rationalize, to frustration and defeat.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the areas of hesitation is essential to understand what affects the choices of acceptance, delay or refusal of vaccination. The issues that emerged regarding proper communication within the vaccination campaign highlights the key importance of adequate vaccination strategies.

IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Understanding attitudes towards vaccine and related motivations among healthcare workers could help develop more specific and targeted vaccination campaigns that can ensure proper vaccination coverage rates and avoid hesitancy or refusal.

IMPACT

Healthcare workers experiences of COVID-19 vaccines, their views and know how they feel during COVID-19 vaccinations. Healthcare workers had three different positions in COVID-19 vaccination. This research will guide and target future vaccination campaigns.

REPORTING METHOD

The study is reported using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Influenza Vaccination Coverage of Healthcare Personnel in Alicante, Spain

Influenza is a health problem and vaccination is the most effective measure to prevent it. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccination coverage (VC) against influenza in healthcare workers (HCWs). A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Dr. Balmis University General Hospital in the province of Alicante (Spain), in which vaccination data were collected retrospectively. Adverse effects (AEs) were detected via telephone call between 15 and 30 days after vaccination. The existence of significant changes in VC between the different seasons studied was evaluated using Chi square with a statistical significance level of p < 0.05. A total of 8403 HCWs vaccinated throughout the different seasons were studied. The vaccination coverage of HCWs for influenza pre-COVID-19 pandemic (2019/20 season) was 51.9%; increased during the pandemic to 67.9% (2020/21 season) and 65.5% (2021/22 season); and, after the pandemic, it decreased to 42.7% (2022/23 season) (p < 0.05). The most frequent reason for vaccination during the periods evaluated was "self-protection", followed by "protection of patients" and "protection of family members". Of all HCWs evaluated, 26.6% (1460/5493) reported at least one AE. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs' influenza vaccination coverage fluctuated considerably. There has been an increase in VC during the most critical moments of the pandemic, both in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons, which has, subsequently, decreased in the 2022/2023 season, to levels below pre-pandemic (2019/2020 season), which justifies implementing specific measures to recover VC in Spain.

Acceptance of influenza vaccination and associated factors among teachers in China: A cross-sectional study based on health belief model

Teachers played an important role on the transmission of influenza in schools and communities. The study aims to investigate the influenza vaccination coverage and the factors determining flu vaccination acceptance among teachers in Hangzhou, China. A total of 1039 junior high school teachers in Hangzhou were recruited. The self-made questionnaire was used to investigate the influenza vaccine coverage among teachers and the influencing factors of influenza vaccination acceptance. Univariate analysis using the chi-square test and multivariable analysis using binary logistic regression were conducted to determine the relative predictors. The Influenza vaccine coverage among teachers was 5.9% (62/1039). 52.9% of teachers had the intention to receive influenza vaccine, 25.3% (247/977)/21.8% (213/977) of participants was hesitant/did not have the intention to get influenza vaccine. The top three sources for teachers to gain knowledge about influenza were website (72%), TV/radio (66.1%) and social media (58%). Whether get influenza vaccination before, knowledge about influenza and influenza vaccine, the beliefs for the likelihood of catching flu, the severity of getting flu, the effectiveness of influenza vaccine, the possibility of side effects after vaccination, and the troublesome of vaccination, doctors' recommendation, as well as the situation of vaccination among other teachers were the associated factors of influenza vaccination acceptance. The influenza vaccination coverage was low but the intentions were relatively high among junior high school teachers. Future research should focus on the relationship between vaccination acceptance and behavior to increase influenza vaccination rates.

Identifying reasons for non-acceptance of influenza vaccine in healthcare workers: an observational study using declination form data

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are sometimes required to complete a declination form if they choose not to accept the influenza vaccine. We analysed the declination data with the goal of identifying barriers to vaccination uptake across seasons, staff groups, and pre- and post- arrival of COVID-19.

METHODS

Reasons for declining the vaccine were gathered from N = 2230 declination forms, collected over four influenza seasons, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, from a single health board in the UK. Reasons were classified according to ten categories and the resulting distribution analysed across year and staff groups. A further analysis considered the two most prevalent categories in more detail.

RESULTS

Fear of adverse reactions and Lack of perception of own risk were identified as primary reasons for not accepting the vaccine across time and across staff groups. However, there was no evidence that Lack of concern with influenza, or Doubts about vaccine efficacy was prevalent, contrary to previous findings. Overall, reasons fitted a pattern of underestimating risk associated with influenza and overestimating risk of minor adverse reactions. There were also differences across years, χ2(24) = 123, p < .001. In particular, there were relatively fewer Lack of perception of own risk responses post-COVID-19 arrival than before, χ2(8) = 28.93, p = .002.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that data collected from declination forms yields sensible information concerning vaccine non-acceptance without the difficulties of retrospective or pre-emptive reasoning suffered by questionnaires. Our findings will aid messaging campaigns designed to encourage uptake of the influenza vaccine in healthcare workers. In particular, we argue for an approach focused on risk perception rather than correction of straightforward misconceptions.

Influenza vaccine coverage among healthcare workers: A cluster analysis from a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Influenza vaccination is recommended for healthcare workers (HCWs). However, in a 1500-bed tertiary care university hospital in France, influenza vaccine coverage among HCWs was 23% in 2017.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study between 05/09/2018 and 25/09/2018 among HCWs, randomly selected independent of their vaccination status, to estimate influenza vaccination coverage rate during the 2017-2018 season, and explore factors influencing vaccination, using a questionnaire. Multivariable regression analysis to assess factors associated with vaccine uptake and hierarchical clustering on principal components to identify HCW profiles regarding factors influencing vaccine uptake, were performed after multiple imputation.

RESULTS

977 HCWs were included (68% participation rate), primarily females (84%), nurses (38%) of 18-39 years old. Influenza vaccination coverage rate reached 33[30-36]%. Frequent vaccination (aOR 39.27[21.52-74.51]) and personal/family medical history of influenza (aOR 3.33[1.16-10.02]) were independently associated with vaccination. In HCWs' patterns of influenza vaccination status, three clusters were identified: 1) (n = 438) mostly vaccinated (70%); 2) (n = 507) most unvaccinated (97%); and 3) (n = 32) unvaccinated HCWs lacking knowledge on influenza and influenza vaccine. Among the 148 (15%) HCWs reluctant to receive the vaccine the following year, 23 (16%) received it for the 2017-2018 season, while 125 (84%) did not, mostly stating they had doubts about the vaccine (82%).

CONCLUSION

This work identifies determinants of vaccine uptake and highlights HCWs profiles associated with factors influencing vaccination and a subgroup of HCWs flexible about having the vaccine during the upcoming seasonal campaign. This result opens up perspectives toward improved vaccination coverage among HCWs.

What Causes the Discrepancy in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Between Parental Hesitancy for Themselves and for Their Children During Lockdown Period?

BACKGROUND

Parents are usually the decision-makers for vaccinations of children. Therefore, it is important to understand parental beliefs and attitudes toward severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine for themselves and their children when it was approved for children age 3-17.

METHOD

A cross-sectional survey based on an anonymous online questionnaire for parents was conducted in seven provinces of China, and demographic information, vaccination history, parental decision motives, and health belief model toward themselves and their children were collected, respectively.

RESULTS

The overall parental hesitancy rate toward themselves was 20.30%, and that toward their children was 7.80%. More parental concerns on disease severity (odd ratio [OR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.61) and susceptibility (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.01-1.63) of children could be the causes of discrepancy in hesitancy for themselves and for their children. Parents who hesitated to vaccinate themselves might also be hesitated to vaccinate their children (β = 0.077, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Threat perception may lead to inconsistencies in parental vaccination decisions toward themselves and toward their children. Correcting misinformation and strengthening education about COVID-19 are of great significance in addressing vaccine hesitancy among parents and children.

The Role of Medication Beliefs in COVID-19 Vaccine and Booster Uptake in Healthcare Workers: An Exploratory Study

Illness and medication beliefs have shown to predict COVID-19 vaccination behaviour in the general population, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated in healthcare staff. This research aimed to explore the potential explanatory value of illness and medication beliefs on the COVID-19 vaccination uptake of a sample of patient-facing healthcare workers (HCWs). A web-based questionnaire-measuring beliefs about vaccinations (the BMQ), perceptions of COVID-19 (the BIPQ), vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine uptake-was targeted to HCWs via social media platforms between May-July 2022. Open text responses allowed participants to provide explanations for any delay in vaccine uptake. A total of 91 participants completed the questionnaire. Most respondents (77.1%, n = 64) had received three doses of the COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccination uptake (number of doses received) was predicted by Vaccine Concerns, Vaccine Hesitancy, and their Necessity-Concerns Differential score. Vaccine Hesitancy was predicted by Necessity, Concerns, and Overuse scores, as well as Necessity-Concerns Differential scores. Delay in Vaccine Uptake could only be predicted for Dose 3 (Booster). Qualitative data revealed that hesitant respondents were "unable to take time off work" for vaccination and that some had concerns over vaccine safety. In conclusion, illness and medication beliefs have potential value in predicting vaccine hesitancy and uptake in healthcare workers. Interventions to improve vaccination uptake in this population should address concerns about vaccine safety and releasing staff for vaccination booster appointments should be prioritised. Future research should further investigate the relationship between illness and medication beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a larger sample of healthcare workers.

Healthcare Workers' Attitudes toward Influenza Vaccination: A Behaviour and Social Drivers Survey

This study aimed to understand the intention and correlation of receiving and recommending influenza vaccine (IV) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in China during the 2022/2023 season using the behavior and social drivers (BeSD) tools. A self-administered electronic survey collected 17,832 participants on a media platform. We investigated the willingness of IV and used multivariate logistic regression analysis to explore its associated factors. The average scores of the 3Cs’ model were compared by multiple comparisons. We also explored the factors that potentially correlated with recommendation willingness by partial regression. The willingness of IV was 74.89% among HCWs, and 82.58% of the participants were likely to recommend it to others during this season. Thinking and feeling was the strongest domain independently associated with willingness. All domains in BeSD were significantly different between the hesitancy and acceptance groups. Central factors in the 3Cs model were significantly different among groups (p < 0.01). HCWs’ willingness to IV recommendation was influenced by their ability to answer related questions (r  =  0.187, p  <  0.001) after controlling for their IV willingness and perceived risk. HCWs’ attitudes towards IV affect their vaccination and recommendation. The BeSD framework revealed the drivers during the decision-making process. Further study should classify the causes in detail to refine HCWs’ education.

Models of determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-pregnant and pregnant population: Review of current literature"

Vaccination has proven to be the most effective tool in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. While pregnant individuals are considered to be a high-risk population and are more likely to experience adverse effects from COVID-19, vaccination rates among pregnant individuals are significantly lower than in the general population. The Health Belief Model (HBM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), 3C model, 5C model, and 5A model have been used to assess vaccination hesitancy behaviors. In this paper, we review the use of each of these models to address vaccine hesitancy, with a focus on the pregnant population and the COVID-19 vaccine. The HBM, TPB, 3C model, and 5C model have demonstrated great versatility in their ability to evaluate, explain, and modify vaccine hesitancy and behavior. Up to date, the HBM and 3C models appear to be the most effective models to study and address vaccination hesitancy within the pregnant persons.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in pregnant and breastfeeding women and strategies to increase vaccination compliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Despite this, low vaccination coverages are reported in this population sub-group.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this study is to estimate the proportion of pregnant and breastfeeding women expressing hesitation to the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide. Forty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and February 6, 2022. The vaccine hesitation rate among pregnant and breastfeeding women was 48.4% (95%CI= 43.4-53.4%). In a sub analysis by study period, it was 40.0% (95%CI=31.6-46.6%) considering surveys administered in 2020, 58.0% (95%CI=48.9-66.9%) considering surveys administered in the first semester of 2021, and 38.1% (95%CI=25.9-51.2%) considering surveys administered in the second semester of 2021. The main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Available evidence in the literature has shown that fighting vaccine resistance is harsh and too slow as a process, considering the rapidity and unpredictability of a pandemic. Health education should be provided in order to improve the willingness of the community, especially for those with lower levels of education.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italian healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As for other vaccines, vaccination hesitancy may be a determining factor in the success (or otherwise) of the COVID-19 immunization campaign in healthcare workers (HCWs).

AREAS COVERED

To estimate the proportion of HCWs in Italy who expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Determinants of vaccine compliance and options suggested by these studies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs were also analyzed. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and January 25, 2022. The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.9-20.9%). The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs investigated before and during the vaccination campaign was 18.2% (95%CI=12.8-24.2%) and 8.9% (95%CI=3.4-16.6%), respectively. That main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite strategies to achieve a greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be one of the most important measures that can guarantee the protection of HCWs and the patients they care for.