Comparison of parent-reported motivators of non-vaccination for children 5-11 years old in Australia and Canada: Results of the iCARE study

BACKGROUND

Despite COVID-19 infection being less severe in children compared to adults, vaccination for children from the age of 6 months onwards is recommended in many countries to reduce symptom severity and prevent severe disease. However, vaccination against COVID-19 for children remains controversial and uptake has been low.

AIMS

To assess and compare the rate of change of parent-reported COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children aged 5 to 11 years and motivators of vaccine acceptance and non-vaccination among parents/guardians in Canada and Australia.

METHODS

As part of the iCARE study, two cross-sectional representative samples in Canada and Australia were collected between May 20 and September 12, 2022 (i.e., 5 and 9 months after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for children 5-11 years) using online panels. Parents/guardians reported the vaccine status of their children and motivators for vaccine acceptance and non-vaccination. General linear models were used to estimate differences between countries in terms of vaccine uptake and motivators across time.

RESULTS

Parent-reported vaccine uptake for children 5-11 years didn't increase over the study period (T1 = 87 %,T2 = 86 %; OR = 0.83; 95 %CI = 0.45-1.54) and was overall lower in Canada (60.8 %) compared to Australia (71.6 %)(OR = 0.56; 95 %CI = 0.33-0.96). In both countries the socioeconomic characteristics of parents who didn't vaccinate their children were similar and having information on either the short- or long-term side effects of the vaccine were important motivators. However, vaccine effectiveness was more important in Canada and trust in the company that developed the vaccine and a recommendation from the child's doctor were more important motivators in Australia.

CONCLUSION

Parent-reported vaccine uptake for children 5-11 years plateaued early in the vaccine rollout. The main motivators for parents of unvaccinated children varied between the two countries but information on vaccine safety and effectiveness were common to both countries. Findings may inform future tailored vaccine communication efforts and pandemic planning in Australia and Canada to optimize vaccine uptake for primary school children.

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.

Racial discrimination in healthcare services among Black individuals in Canada as a major threat for public health: its association with COVID-19 vaccine mistrust and uptake, conspiracy beliefs, depression, anxiety, stress, and community resilience

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of major racial discrimination (MRD) in healthcare services and its association with COVID-19 vaccine mistrust and uptake, conspiracy theories, COVID-19-related stressors, community resilience, anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms.

STUDY DESIGN

The study used a population-based cross-sectional design.

METHODS

Data from the BlackVax dataset on COVID-19 vaccination in Black individuals in Canada was analyzed (n = 2002, 51.66% women). Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association between MRD and independent variables.

RESULTS

32.55% of participants declared having experienced MRD in healthcare services. Participants with MRD were less vaccinated against COVID-19, presented higher scores of vaccine mistrust, conspiracy beliefs, COVID-19 related stressors, depression, anxiety, and stress, and had lower scores of community resilience. They were more likely to experience depression (AOR = 2.13, P < 0.001), anxiety (AOR = 2.00, P < 0.001), and stress symptoms (AOR = 2.15, P < 0.001). Participants who experienced MRD were more likely to be unvaccinated (AOR = 1.35, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial discrimination experienced by Black individuals in health services is a major public health concern and threat to population health in Canada. Federal, provincial, and municipal public health agencies should adapt their programs, strategies, tools, and campaigns to address the mistrust created by racial discrimination.

The ethics of firing unvaccinated employees

Some organisations make vaccination a condition of employment. This means prospective employees must demonstrate they have been vaccinated (eg, against measles) to be hired. But it also means organisations must decide whether existing employees should be expected to meet newly introduced vaccination conditions (eg, against COVID-19). Unlike prospective employees who will not be hired if they do not meet vaccination conditions, existing employees who fail to meet new vaccination conditions risk being fired The latter seems worse than the former. Hence, objections to vaccination mandates commonly centre on the harms that will be visited on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, because this objection does not necessarily entail the claim that vaccination is unnecessary for the effective and safe performance of certain jobs, those making this objection should have less of an objection, or no objection at all (at least on these grounds), to introducing vaccination requirements in some cases for prospective employees. Yet, in this paper, I shall argue that if one has reason to believe vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, one should also believe they are justified for existing employees despite any asymmetry in consequences experienced by the two groups. As a consequence, common objections made against vaccination mandates grounded solely in the harms that may be experienced by existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated should be considered unpersuasive.

Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health.

OBJECTIVE

In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively.

RESULTS

Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.

Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in vasculitis patients

Objective

To identify the factors that impact COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in vaccine-hesitant vasculitis patients, and compare their perceptions with other rheumatology patients, given existence of data suggesting rheumatology patients may have disease-specific factors that influence their COVID-19 vaccine decision-making.

Methods

This cross-sectional study surveyed adult rheumatology patients from the Kaye Edmonton Clinic Rheumatology Clinic, in Canada, between June and August 2021, using an anonymous online questionnaire. Survey responses were analyzed for statistical differences using chi-square analysis.

Results

The COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions Survey had a response rate of 70.9%. Of the total 231 respondents, 103 patients were diagnosed with vasculitis. At the time of the survey, 10.6% of vasculitis patients refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine compared to 6.3% for other rheumatology patients. Compared to other rheumatology patients, vaccine-hesitant vasculitis patients were significantly more concerned about almost every aspect of available COVID-19 vaccines [e.g., safety (p < 0.001), components (p < 0.001)], and feared that they could contract SARS-CoV-2 from a vaccine (p < 0.001). These vaccine-hesitant patients were also significantly less pleased with the government's pandemic response, less confident in healthcare team-provided information (p < 0.001), and more likely to report that healthcare providers had no role in their COVID-19 vaccine decision-making (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Vaccine-hesitant vasculitis patients may have multiple considerations influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, including vaccine and disease-specific concerns, along with unfavorable perceptions of the healthcare system (government and healthcare providers). Healthcare providers can address some of these concerns by initiating patient-centered discussions around immunizations to help support educated decision-making.

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? The interplay between pro- and against- vaccination reasons

BACKGROUND

By mid 2023, European countries reached 75% of vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and although vaccination rates are quite high, many people are still hesitant. A plethora of studies have investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, however, insufficient attention has been paid to the reasons why people get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our work aims to investigate the role of reasons in the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a representative sample of 1,689 adult Italians (March-April 2021) balanced in terms of age, gender, educational level and area of residence.

METHODS

Through an online questionnaire, we asked participants to freely report up to three reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccination, and the weight each had in the decision to get vaccinated. We first investigated the role of emotional competence and COVID-19 risk perception in the generation of both reasons using regression models. Next, we studied the role that the different reasons had in the vaccination decision, considering both the intention to vaccinate (using a beta regression model) and the decision made by the participants who already had the opportunity to get vaccinated (using a logistic regression model). Finally, two different classification tree analyses were carried out to characterize profiles with a low or high willingness to get vaccinated or with a low or high probability to accept/book the vaccine.

RESULTS

High emotional competence positively influences the generation of both reasons (ORs > 1.5), whereas high risk perception increases the generation of positive reasons (ORs > 1.4) while decreasing reasons against vaccination (OR = 0.64). As pro-reasons increase, vaccination acceptance increases, while the opposite happens as against-reasons increase (all p < 0.001). One strong reason in favor of vaccines is enough to unbalance the decision toward acceptance of vaccination, even when reasons against it are also present (p < 0.001). Protection and absence of distrust are the reasons that mostly drive willingness to be vaccinated and acceptance of an offered vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing the reasons that drive people's decision about such an important choice can suggest new communication insights to reduce possible negative reactions toward vaccination and people's hesitancy. Results are discussed considering results of other national and international studies.

Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 pandemic: experience of healthcare workers in Qatar

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound and global impact on healthcare systems worldwide, presenting unprecedented challenges for healthcare workers (HCWs) on the front. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms during the coronavirus pandemic among healthcare professionals in Qatar.

Methods

A cross-sectional study where an electronic questionnaire containing demographics, and psychosocial questions were made on Google Docs and Microsoft Team, and were sent through email and WhatsApp to healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses, allied health and others working at Hamad Medical Corporation in Qatar, from June 1, 2021, to January 1st 2023. ANOVA, t-test and multiple linear regression were used to see the association between the psychological factors and sociodemographic variables using STATA version 17 software.

Results

A total of 829 participants were included in this study (response rate: 55%). The average age of the participants is 36.0 ± 7.1; 65.9% were males; 2.3% were doctors and 53% were nurses, 38.7% were allied healthcare professionals and 6% were others. Psychological, social effects, and workplace were shown to significantly related to their marital status, career, and hospital setting (p < 0.01 for each). Similar to this, dealing with COVID-19 patients and their education level with the length of time working at the designated facility were all connected with the health professional safety score (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

During the COVID-19 epidemic, healthcare workers in Qatar experienced a high incidence of negative psychosocial symptoms. To alleviate these outcomes, it would be useful to implement screening procedures for such symptoms and to devise preventive measures accordingly.

The Social Ecological Model: A Framework for Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Healthcare Workers-A Scoping Review

Vaccination plays a crucial role in combating the global COVID-19 pandemic. Immunizing all healthcare workers (HCWs) is essential for increasing vaccine confidence and acceptance within the general population. Understanding the factors that hinder or facilitate vaccine uptake among HCWs is of utmost importance, considering they are among the first to be vaccinated. This review follows Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, WorldCat Discovery, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles published from 2020 to 2023. A descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis approach were employed to collect and synthesize data. Using the social-ecological model as a framework, the literature was categorized into themes at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels. We reviewed a total of fifty-three published academic articles, with the majority of studies conducted in Ethiopia and Nigeria. The intention for vaccine uptake resulted in an unsatisfactory (52%) overall uptake rate among HCWs. Individual-level determinants associated with vaccine uptake included being male, middle-aged, being a physician, having a higher level of education, and having a chronic illness. This review identified significant barriers at each level, such as safety concerns, perceived scientific uncertainty, vaccine ineffectiveness, lack of trust in stakeholders, and religious beliefs. Additionally, we identified facilitators at each level, with the most common factors promoting intention to uptake being the desire to protect oneself and others and a high perceived susceptibility to contracting COVID-19. This review highlights the existence of significant barriers to vaccine uptake on the African continent. Given that HCWs play a crucial role in guiding the public's vaccination decisions, it is imperative to prioritize education and training efforts about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Impact of a vaccine passport on first-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage by age and area-level social determinants of health in the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario: an interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

In Canada, all provinces implemented vaccine passports in 2021 to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission in non-essential indoor spaces and increase vaccine uptake (policies active September 2021-March 2022 in Quebec and Ontario). We sought to evaluate the impact of vaccine passport policies on first-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage by age, and area-level income and proportion of racialized residents.

METHODS

We performed interrupted time series analyses using data from Quebec's and Ontario's vaccine registries linked to census information (population of 20.5 million people aged ≥ 12 yr; unit of analysis: dissemination area). We fit negative binomial regressions to first-dose vaccinations, using natural splines adjusting for baseline vaccination coverage (start: July 2021; end: October 2021 for Quebec, November 2021 for Ontario). We obtained counterfactual vaccination rates and coverage, and estimated the absolute and relative impacts of vaccine passports.

RESULTS

In both provinces, first-dose vaccination coverage before the announcement of vaccine passports was 82% (age ≥ 12 yr). The announcement resulted in estimated increases in coverage of 0.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.2) in Quebec and 0.7 percentage points (95% CI 0.5-0.8) in Ontario. This corresponds to 23% (95% CI 10%-36%) and 19% (95% CI 15%-22%) more vaccinations over 11 weeks. The impact was larger among people aged 12-39 years. Despite lower coverage in lower-income and more-racialized areas, there was little variability in the absolute impact by area-level income or proportion racialized in either province.

INTERPRETATION

In the context of high vaccine coverage across 2 provinces, the announcement of vaccine passports had a small impact on first-dose coverage, with little impact on reducing economic and racial inequities in vaccine coverage. Findings suggest that other policies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among lower-income and racialized neighbourhoods and communities.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Adolescents in Ontario, Canada

Importance

COVID-19 vaccinations are recommended for minors. Surveys indicate lower vaccine acceptance by some immigrant and refugee groups.

Objective

To identify characteristics in immigrant, refugee, and nonimmigrant minors associated with vaccination.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used linked, population-based demographic and health care data from Ontario, Canada, including all children aged 4 to 17 years registered for universal health insurance on January 1, 2021, across 2 distinct campaigns: for adolescents (ages 12-17 years), starting May 23, 2021, and for children (ages 5-11 years), starting November 25, 2021, through April 24, 2022. Data were analyzed from May 9 to August 2, 2022.

Exposures

Immigrant or refugee status and immigration characteristics (recency, category, region of origin, and generation).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were crude rates of COVID-19 vaccination (defined as ≥1 vaccination for children and ≥2 vaccinations for adolescents) and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs for vaccination, adjusted for clinical, sociodemographic, and health system factors.

Results

The total cohort included 2.2 million children and adolescents, with 1 098 749 children (mean [SD] age, 7.06 [2.00] years; 563 388 [51.3%] males) and 1 142 429 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 14.00 [1.99] years; 586 617 [51.3%] males). Among children, 53 090 (4.8%) were first-generation and 256 886 (23.4%) were second-generation immigrants or refugees; among adolescents, 104 975 (9.2%) were first-generation and 221 981 (19.4%) were second-generation immigrants or refugees, most being economic or family-class immigrants. Immigrants, particularly refugees, were more likely to live in neighborhoods with highest material deprivation (first-generation immigrants: 18.6% of children and 20.2% of adolescents; first-generation refugees: 46.4% of children and 46.3% of adolescents; nonimmigrants: 18.5% of children and 17.2% of adolescents) and COVID-19 risk (first-generation immigrants; 20.0% of children and 20.5% of adolescents; first-generation refugees: 9.4% of children and 12.6% of adolescents; nonimmigrants: 6.9% of children and 6.8% of adolescents). Vaccination rates (53.1% in children and 79.2% in adolescents) were negatively associated with material deprivation. In both age groups, odds for vaccination were higher in immigrants (children: aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27-1.33; adolescents: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12) but lower in refugees (children: aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.33-0.36; adolescents: aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91) compared with nonimmigrants. In immigrant- and refugee-only models stratified by generation, region of origin was associated with uptake, compared with the overall rate, with the lowest odds observed in immigrants and refugees from Eastern Europe (children: aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.35-0.46; adolescents: aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.38-0.43) and Central Africa (children: aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; adolescents: aOR, 0.51,CI: 0.45-0.59) and the highest odds observed in immigrants and refugees from Southeast Asia (children: aOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.47-2.92; adolescents aOR, 4.42; 95% CI, 4.10-4.77). Adjusted odds of vaccination among immigrants and refugees from regions with lowest vaccine coverage were similar across generations.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study using a population-based sample in Canada, nonrefugee immigrants had higher vaccine coverage than nonimmigrants. Substantial heterogeneity by region of origin and lower vaccination coverage in refugees persisted across generations. These findings suggest that vaccine campaigns need precision public health approaches targeting specific barriers in identified, undervaccinated subgroups.

Understanding the COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Terrain in Ontario Canada: A Policy Analysis of the Actors, Content, Processes, and Context

(1) Background: Canada had a unique approach to COVID-19 vaccine policy making. The objective of this study was to understand the evolution of COVID-19 vaccination policies in Ontario, Canada, using the policy triangle framework. (2) Methods: We searched government websites and social media to identify COVID-19 vaccination policies in Ontario, Canada, which were posted between 1 October 2020, and 1 December 2021. We used the policy triangle framework to explore the policy actors, content, processes, and context. (3) Results: We reviewed 117 Canadian COVID-19 vaccine policy documents. Our review found that federal actors provided guidance, provincial actors made actionable policy, and community actors adapted policy to local contexts. The policy processes aimed to approve and distribute vaccines while continuously updating policies. The policy content focused on group prioritization and vaccine scarcity issues such as the delayed second dose and the mixed vaccine schedules. Finally, the policies were made in the context of changing vaccine science, global and national vaccine scarcity, and a growing awareness of the inequitable impacts of pandemics on specific communities. (4) Conclusions: We found that the triad of vaccine scarcity, evolving efficacy and safety data, and social inequities all contributed to the creation of vaccine policies that were difficult to efficiently communicate to the public. A lesson learned is that the need for dynamic policies must be balanced with the complexity of effective communication and on-the-ground delivery of care.

Proposing a New Conceptual Syndemic Framework for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Discussions regarding syndemics have dominated research in recent years. Vaccine hesitancy has also been propelled to the forefront. In this narrative review, we aim to frame a novel syndemic framework to understand the interaction between vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19, and negative health outcomes.

METHODS

A non-systematic electronic search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Search criteria were limited to articles published between November 2019 and June 2022. Articles related to the COVID-19 syndemic and vaccine hesitancy were included.

RESULTS

Our review revealed that the adherence to COVID-19 regulations-although they were effective in preventing COVID-19 transmission, cases, and deaths-created a dynamically unstable 'vicious cycle' between undesirable health, economic, and social outcomes. The "accumulation" of complex stressors decreased individuals' cognitive flexibility and hindered them from making decisions and getting vaccinated. Furthermore, it increased individuals' risk of acquiring COVID-19, losing their employment, increasing poverty, and decreasing healthcare utilization. We illustrated how the amalgamation of sociodemographic and contextual factors associated with COVID-19 might impact people's vaccine decisions, making them more hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccination. Failing to receive vaccinations increases the chances of COVID-19 transmission, hospitalization, and other negative health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the interaction between these factors is essential to provide policymakers with inspiration to set appropriate interventions for promoting COVID-19 vaccination acceptance to decrease the overall burden of pandemics.

An equitable vaccine delivery system: Lessons from the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Canada

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing health disparities and disproportionately affected vulnerable individuals and communities (e.g., low-income, precariously housed or in institutional settings, racialized, migrant, refugee, 2SLBGTQ+). Despite their higher risk of infection and sub-optimal access to healthcare, Canada's COVID-19 vaccination strategy focused primarily on age, as well as medical and occupational risk factors.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods constant comparative qualitative analysis of epidemiological data from a national database of COVID-19 cases and vaccine coverage in four Canadian jurisdictions. Jurisdictional policies, policy updates, and associated press releases were collected from government websites, and qualitative data were collected through 34 semi-structured interviews of key informants from nine Canadian jurisdictions. Interviews were coded and analyzed for themes and patterns.

RESULTS

COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out in Canada in three phases, each accompanied by specific challenges. Vaccine delivery systems typically featured large-venue mass immunization sites that presented a variety of barriers for those from vulnerable communities. The engagement and targeted outreach that featured in the later phases were driven predominantly by the efforts of community organizations and primary care providers, with limited support from provincial governments.

CONCLUSIONS

While COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Canada is largely considered a success, such an interpretation is shaped by the metrics chosen. Vaccine delivery systems across Canada need substantial improvements to ensure optimal uptake and equitable access for all. Our findings suggest a more equitable model for vaccine delivery featuring early establishment of local barrier-free clinics, culturally safe and representative environment, as well as multi-lingual assistance, among other vulnerability-sensitive elements.

The second year of pandemic in the Arctic: examining spatiotemporal dynamics of the COVID-19 "Delta wave" in Arctic regions in 2021

The second year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Arctic was dominated by the Delta wave that primarily lasted between July and December 2021 with varied epidemiological outcomes. An analysis of the Arctic’s subnational COVID-19 data revealed a massive increase in cases and deaths across all its jurisdictions but at varying time periods. However, the case fatality ratio (CFR) in most Arctic regions did not rise dramatically and was below national levels (except in Northern Russia). Based on the spatiotemporal patterns of the Delta outbreak, we identified four types of pandemic waves across Arctic regions: Tsunami (Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Northern Norway, Northern Finland, and Northern Canada), Superstorm (Alaska), Tidal wave (Northern Russia), and Protracted Wave (Northern Sweden). These regionally varied COVID-19 epidemiological dynamics are likely attributable to the inconsistency in implementing public health prevention measures, geographical isolation, and varying vaccination rates. A lesson remote and Indigenous communities can learn from the Arctic is that the three-prong (delay-prepare-respond) approach could be a tool in curtailing the impact of COVID-19 or future pandemics. This article is motivated by previous research that examined the first and second waves of the pandemic in the Arctic. Data are available at https://arctic.uni.edu/arctic-covid-19.

"I don't think there's a point for me to discuss it with my patients": exploring health care providers' views and behaviours regarding COVID-19 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Health care providers' knowledge and attitudes about vaccines are important determinants of their own vaccine uptake, their intention to recommend vaccines, and their patients' vaccine uptake. This qualitative study' objective was to better understand health care providers' vaccination decisions, their views on barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and proposed solutions, their opinions on vaccine policies, and their perceived role in discussing COVID-19 vaccination with patients.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines were conducted with Canadian health care providers (N = 14) in spring 2021. A qualitative thematic analysis using NVivo was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants had positive attitudes toward vaccination and were vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to do so once eligible (two delayed their first dose). Only two were actively promoting COVID-19 vaccination to their patients; others either avoided discussing the topic or only provided answers when asked questions. Participants' proposed solutions to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the public were in relation to access to vaccination services, information in multiple languages, and community outreach. Most participants were in favor of mandatory vaccination policies and had mixed views on the potential impact of the Canadian vaccine-injury support program.

CONCLUSIONS

While health care providers are recognized as a key source of information regarding vaccines, participants in our study did not consider it their role to provide advice on COVID-19 vaccination. This is a missed opportunity that could be avoided by ensuring health care providers have the tools and training to feel confident in engaging in vaccine discussions with their patients.

Measuring inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake and intent: results from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2021

BACKGROUND

By July 2021, Canada had received enough COVID-19 vaccines to fully vaccinate every eligible Canadian. However, despite the availability of vaccines, some eligible individuals remain unvaccinated. Differences in vaccination uptake can be driven by health inequalities which have been exacerbated and amplified by the pandemic. This study aims to assess inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake and intent in adults 18 years or older across Canada by identifying sociodemographic factors associated with non-vaccination and low vaccination intent using data drawn from the June to August 2021 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS).

METHODS

The CCHS is an annual cross-sectional and nationally representative survey conducted by Statistics Canada, which collects health-related information. Since September 2020, questions about the COVID-19 pandemic are asked. Adjusted logistic regression models were fitted to examine associations between vaccination uptake or intent and sociodemographic and health related variables. Region, age, gender, level of education, Indigenous status, visible minority status, perceived health status, and having a regular healthcare provider were considered as predictors, among other factors.

RESULTS

The analysis included 9,509 respondents. The proportion of unvaccinated was 11%. Non-vaccination was associated with less than university education (aOR up to 3.5, 95% CI 2.1-6.1), living with children under 12 years old (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4), not having a regular healthcare provider (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), and poor self-perceived health (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4). Only 5% of the population had low intention to get vaccinated. Being unlikely to get vaccinated was associated with the Prairies region (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1), younger age groups (aOR up to 4.0, 95% CI 1.3-12.3), less than university education (aOR up to 3.8, 95% CI 1.9-7.6), not being part of a visible minority group (aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-6.4), living with children under 12 years old (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), unattached individuals (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.1), and poor self-perceived health (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-2.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities were observed in vaccination uptake and intent among various sociodemographic groups. Awareness of inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake and intent is needed to determine the vaccination barriers to address in vaccination promotion strategies.

Barriers to adult vaccination in Canada: A qualitative systematic review

Background:

In recent years, Canadian health care professionals have observed an increase in vaccine refusal. The objective of this study is to review published literature and identify the main themes related to vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in Canadian adults and recent immigrants.

Methods:

A qualitative systematic review was performed. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (1946 to January 2021) and EMBASE (1974 to January 2021) was conducted to identify existing literature that addressed the primary research question. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the study population involved 1) the general population, 2) Indigenous populations, 3) recent immigrants to Canada or 4) Canadian health care professionals.

Results:

Thirty-four studies were included with a focus on the general population (n = 22), health care professionals (n = 10) and recent immigrant populations (n = 2). The most frequently reported barriers were lack of vaccine information (41%), lack of access to vaccination (38%), fear of adverse reactions (38%), financial reasons (29%), lack of awareness of vaccine existence (29%), antivaccine sentiments (24%), notion that older adults do not need vaccination (18%), misconceptions on vaccine effectiveness (12%), potential sexual health promotion stigma (6%) and fear of needles (3%).

Interpretation:

Barriers to vaccination among Canadians and recent immigrants continue to be a challenge in the health care system.

Conclusions:

The greatest yield in improving vaccination rates is likely to come from supporting vaccine-hesitant individuals in shifting their thinking to greater vaccine acceptance. Pharmacists are well positioned to address vaccine hesitancy and involvement through education, facilitation and administration of vaccines. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2022;155:xx-xx.

Impact of the CARD (Comfort Ask Relax Distract) system on school-based vaccinations: A cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The CARD (Comfort Ask Relax Distract) system is a vaccine delivery framework that integrates evidence-based interventions to reduce stress-related responses and improve the vaccination experience for children undergoing vaccinations at school. In preliminary studies, CARD was acceptable and effective. The objective was to evaluate CARD in a large, pragmatic trial to confirm its effectiveness in real-world settings.

METHODS

Hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial in schools receiving vaccination services from Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health. Forty schools with grade 7 students (12 years old) were randomized to CARD and control (n = 20/group). Nurses in CARD schools planned clinics with principals and educated students about CARD ahead of time. Principals disseminated information to staff and parents and sent reminders. Vaccination day processes minimized fear and facilitated student self-selected coping strategies. Nurses in control schools followed usual practices, which excluded principal meetings, education, reminders, and systematic integration of fear-reducing or child-selected coping strategies. Outcomes included stress-related symptoms (fear - primary outcome, pain, dizziness, fainting, post-vaccination reactions), use of coping interventions, vaccination uptake, attitudes and implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity).

RESULTS

Altogether, 1919 students were included. Fear and pain were lower in CARD schools: OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.47-0.90) and OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.50-0.77), respectively. No students fainted in CARD schools compared to 0.8% in control (p = 0.02). Dizziness and post-vaccination reactions did not differ. Student-led coping interventions were used more frequently in CARD schools. Vaccination uptake was 76.1% in CARD schools and 72.5% in control schools (OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.85-1.50)). Staff and students had positive attitudes about CARD and implementation outcomes; however, recommendations were made to improve fidelity.

DISCUSSION

CARD reduced stress-related responses in students undergoing vaccinations at school and was positively received by students and public health staff. CARD is recommended to improve the quality of vaccination delivery services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03966300.