Deliberation, context, emotion and trust - understanding the dynamics of adults' COVID-19 vaccination decisions in Germany

Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population

Background

The design of appropriate consent procedures for the secondary use of personal health data is a key concern of current medical research. In Germany, the concept of 'data donation' has recently come into focus, defined as a legal entitlement to the research use of personal medical data without prior consent, combined with an easy-to-exercise right of the data subjects to opt-out.

Methods

Standardized online interviews of 3,013 individuals, representative of the German online population, were conducted in August 2022 to determine their attitude towards data donation for medical research.

Results

A majority of participants supported a consent-free data donation regulation, both for publicly funded (85.1%) and for private medical research (66.4%). Major predictors of a positive attitude towards data donation included (i) sufficient appreciation of the respective kind of research (i.e. public or private), (ii) a reciprocity attitude that patients who benefit from research have a duty to support research, and (iii) sufficient trust in data protection and data control.

Conclusion

People's attitude towards data donation to medical research is generally positive in Germany and depends upon factors that can be curbed by legislation and internal rules of procedure. Worthy of note, designing data donation in the form of an opt-out regulation does not necessarily mean that the paradigm of informedness has to be abandoned. Rather the process of information provision must be shifted towards the creation of basic knowledge in the general population about the risks and benefits of data-intensive medical research ('health data literacy').

Vaccine confidence mediates the association between a pro-social pay-it-forward intervention and improved influenza vaccine uptake in China: A mediation analysis

INTRODUCTION

A Chinese clinical trial has demonstrated that a prosocial pay-it-forward intervention that offered subsidized vaccination and postcard messages effectively increased influenza vaccine uptake and vaccine confidence. This secondary analysis explored the potential mediating role of vaccine confidence on the association between a pay-it-forward intervention and influenza vaccine uptake, and how this might vary by individual annual income levels.

METHODS

Data from 300 participants (150 standard-of-care and 150 pay-it-forward participants) were included in the analysis. We conducted descriptive analysis of demographic and vaccine confidence variables. Multivariable regression and mediation analysis on interventions, vaccine confidence and vaccine uptake were conducted. A sub-group analysis was conducted to further understand whether associations between these variables vary by income levels (<=$1860 or >$1860).

RESULTS

The pay-it-forward intervention was significantly associated with greater levels of perceived influenza vaccine importance (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.60, 95 %CI: 1.77-7.32), effectiveness (aOR = 3.37, 95 %CI: 1.75-6.52) and safety (aOR = 2.20, 95 %CI: 1.17-4.15). Greater perceived influenza vaccine importance was associated with increased vaccine uptake (aOR = 8.51, 95 %CI: 3.04-23.86). The indirect effect of the pay-it-forward intervention on vaccination was significant through improved perceived influenza vaccine importance (indirect effect1 = 0.07, 95 %CI: 0.02-0.11). This study further revealed that, irrespective of the individual income level, the pay-it-forward intervention was associated with increased vaccine uptake when compared to the standard-of-care approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Pay-it-forward intervention may be a promising strategy to improve influenza vaccine uptake. Perceived confidence in vaccine importance appears to be a potential mediator of the association between pay-it-forward and vaccine uptake.

COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in remote Alaska between November 2020 and November 2021

Vaccine hesitancy is an ongoing barrier to achieve sufficient COVID-19 vaccination coverage. Although there are many studies globally of vaccine hesitancy based on large survey samples, there are fewer in-depth qualitative studies that explore vaccine hesitancy and acceptance as a spectrum of decision-making. In this paper, we begin to describe vaccination decision-making among 58 adults living in remote Alaska based on three waves of online surveys and follow-up semi-structured interviews conducted between November 2020 and November 2021. The survey question of intention was not a predictor of adoption for about one third of the interviewees who were unvaccinated when they took the survey (n=12, 35%). Over half of all interviewees (n=37, 64%) had vaccine-related concerns, including 25 vaccinated individuals (representing 57% of vaccinated interviewees). Most interviewees reported that they learned about COVID-19 vaccines through interpersonal interactions (n=30, 52%) and/or a variety of media sources (n=29, 50%). The major facilitators of acceptance were trust in the information source (n=20, 48% of the 42 who responded), and learning from the experiences of family, friends, and the broader community (n=12, 29%). Further, trust and having a sense of agency appears to be important to interviewee decision-making, regardless of vaccination status and intention.

Calculation, knowledge, and identity: Dimensions of trust when making COVID-19 vaccination choices in China

Vaccine hesitancy threatens the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to other infectious disease outbreaks globally. Fostering trust has been highlighted as a critical factor in addressing vaccine hesitancy and expanding vaccine coverage, but qualitative exploration of trust in the context of vaccination remains limited. We contribute to filling this gap by providing a comprehensive qualitative analysis of trust in the context of COVID-19 vaccination in China. We conducted 40 in-depth interviews with Chinese adults in December 2020. During data collection, trust emerged as a highly salient topic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analyzed with a combination of inductive and deductive coding. Following established trust literature, we differentiate between three types of trust - calculation-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identity-based trust - which we grouped across components of the health system, as informed by the WHO's building blocks. Our results highlight how participants attributed their level of trust in COVID-19 vaccines to their trust in the medical technology itself (based on assessing risks and benefits or previous vaccination experiences), the service delivery and health workforce (informed by past experiences with health providers and their role throughout the pandemic), and leadership and governance (drawing on notions of government performance and patriotism). Reducing negative impact from past vaccine controversies, increasing the credibility of pharmaceutical companies, and fostering clear communication are identified as important channels for facilitating trust. Our findings emphasize a strong need for comprehensive information on COVID-19 vaccines and increased promotion of vaccination by credible figures.

A Moderated Mediation Model of the Influence of Cynical Distrust, Medical Mistrust, and Anger on Vaccination Hesitancy in Nursing Staff

During the pandemic, nurses experienced anger that stemmed from a sense of threat, frustration, or even a sense of injustice. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between vaccination hesitancy, anger, cynicism, and medical mistrust among nurses, as there are no relevant studies in the literature. This study was conducted online by completing self-report questionnaires. The Dimensions of Anger Reactions-5, the 8-item "Cynical Distrust" scale, and the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale were used. For vaccination hesitancy, two questions with a 5-point scale were used: one question examining hesitancy to get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine, and another question examining hesitancy to get vaccinated with the influenza vaccine. In total, 387 nurses (66 men and 321 women) participated in this study. Nurses showed statistically greater hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine compared to hesitancy toward the influenza vaccine. The variation in vaccine hesitancy was explained by the scores in the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale, the Dimensions of Anger Reactions, and the Cynical Distrust Scale. The Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale mediated the relationship between the Cynical Distrust Scale and total vaccine hesitancy. The Dimensions of Anger Reactions Scale significantly moderated the indirect effect of the Cynical Distrust Scale on total vaccine hesitancy through the Medical Mistrust Multiformat Scale. In conclusion, it is highly likely that anger is involved in reported vaccine hesitancy both by activating schemas of distrust in others and by adopting anti-systemic views of mistrust in the medical system.

Regional Differences in Uptake of Vaccination against COVID-19 and Influenza in Germany: Results from the DigiHero Cohort

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, vaccination uptake exhibited considerable regional disparities. To assess the factors contributing to this variation, we examined the association of sociodemographic variables with COVID-19, COVID-19 booster, and influenza vaccination status within a cohort of 37,078 participants from 13 German federal states in the digital health cohort study commonly known as DigiHero. Our findings revealed variations in vaccination rates based on sociodemographic factors. However, these factors had limited explanatory power regarding regional differences in vaccine uptake. In contrast, we found substantial correlations between regional support of specific parties during the last local elections and the vaccination uptake at the level of each administrative district. In conclusion, sociodemographic factors alone did not suffice to explain the regional disparities in vaccine uptake. Political stances can play a major role, although the current investigation did not assess individual political orientations but rather used only an ecological approach.

Previous Vaccination History and Psychological Factors as Significant Predictors of Willingness to Receive Mpox Vaccination and a Favorable Attitude towards Compulsory Vaccination

During the ongoing multi-country monkeypox (Mpox) outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have represented a key group in mitigating disease spread. The current study aimed to evaluate the attitude of nurses and physicians in Jordan towards Mpox vaccination, as well as their attitude towards compulsory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), influenza, and Mpox. An online survey was distributed in January 2023 based on the previously validated 5C scale for psychological determinants of vaccination. Previous vaccination behavior was assessed by inquiring about the history of getting the primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination, influenza vaccine uptake during COVID-19, and any history of influenza vaccine uptake. The study sample consisted of 495 respondents: nurses (n = 302, 61.0%) and physicians (n = 193, 39.0%). Four hundred and thirty respondents (86.9%) had heard of Mpox before the study, and formed the final sample considered for Mpox knowledge analysis. Deficiencies in Mpox knowledge were reflected in a mean knowledge score of 13.3 ± 2.7 (out of 20.0 as the maximum score), with significantly lower knowledge among nurses and females. The intention to receive Mpox vaccination was reported by 28.9% of the participants (n = 143), while 33.3% were hesitant (n = 165), and 37.8% were resistant (n = 187). In multivariate analysis, Mpox vaccine acceptance was significantly associated with previous vaccination behavior, reflected in higher vaccine uptake and with higher 5C scores, while Mpox knowledge was not correlated with Mpox vaccination intention. The overall attitude towards compulsory vaccination was neutral, while a favorable attitude towards compulsory vaccination was associated with higher 5C scores and a history of previous vaccination uptake. The current study showed a low intention to get Mpox vaccination in a sample of nurses and physicians practicing in Jordan. The psychological factors and previous vaccination behavior appeared as the most significant determinants of Mpox vaccine acceptance and of attitudes towards compulsory vaccination. The consideration of these factors is central to policies and strategies aiming to promote vaccination among health professionals in efforts to prepare for future infectious disease epidemics.