Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine and determinant factors in the Iranian population: a web-based study

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the COM-B model

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed unprecedented suffering on social and individual levels worldwide. Vaccines against COVID-19 have been prioritized as a crucial strategy for ending the pandemic as well as minimizing its consequences.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among high-risk urban populations in Southern Thailand using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional study in the Hat Yai district, Songkhla province in Southern Thailand, in September and October 2021. The questionnaire was composed of sections on sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 vaccination status, and COM-B constructs. We employed a multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine factors associated with the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. We set statistical significance at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

In this study, females constituted 54.7% of the total participants (n = 358), and nearly half of the participants (45.8%) were in the younger age group (18-29). Of all the participants, 59.5% (95%CI: 54.2%-64.6%) received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Factors associated with the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine and their adjusted OR (95% CI) were being married: 3.59 (2.06-6.24), having a graduate degree: 2.34 (1.38-3.96), gainfully employed: 3.30 (1.91-5.67), having a high level of opportunity: 2.90 (1.48-5.66), and having a high level of motivation: 2.87 (1.17-17.08).

CONCLUSION

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was moderate in this population. Moreover, the results showed that the COM-B model is useful in predicting COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The findings of this study could be used to aid future public health interventions in any event of outbreaks similar to COVID-19 disease in Thailand and beyond.

Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron Variant

Vaccinations are an essential element of public health programs around the world, which have a major impact on morbidity, mortality, and costs of the health care system. In recent years, with a better understanding of the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations, many recommendations have been developed for administering vaccines to adults. Countless physiological changes occur during pregnancy, including those affecting the immune system. Pregnant women are at increased risk of developing infections and resulting complications. According to research, vaccines are immunogenic and safe for pregnant women. Pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication to vaccination. After administration of vaccines to pregnant women, the concentration of antibodies increases, which can be transferred to the child in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy and provide protection in the first months of life. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) unanimously recommend vaccination of pregnant women if a safe vaccine is available and there is a risk of exposure of the woman to a disease that threatens herself or her developing baby. In everyday clinical practice, medical professionals should provide their patients with the necessary information on vaccinations, which may contribute to greater awareness and implementation of vaccinations. This article aims to review current global recommendations for the vaccination of pregnant and breastfeeding women, including against the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 vaccine literacy: A scoping review

To address vaccine hesitancy, specific self-rated tools have been developed to assess vaccine literacy (VL) related to COVID-19, including additional variables, such as beliefs, behavior, and willingness to be vaccinated. To explore the recent literature a search was performed selecting articles published between January 2020 and October 2022: 26 papers were identified using these tools in the context of COVID-19. Descriptive analysis showed that the levels of VL observed in the studies were generally in agreement, with functional VL score often lower than the interactive-critical dimension, as if the latter was stimulated by the COVID-19-related infodemic. Factors associated with VL included vaccination status, age, educational level, and, possibly, gender. Effective communication based on VL when promoting vaccination is critical to sustaining immunization against COVID-19 and other communicable diseases. The VL scales developed to date have shown good consistency. However, further research is needed to improve these tools and develop new ones.

Why healthcare providers are not vaccinated? A qualitative study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran

BACKGROUND

Vaccination has been effective in controlling contagious diseases, especially among high-risk groups such as medical staff. Their unwillingness to be vaccinated might adversely affect individual and public health. This study aimed to explore the factors related to the refusal of COVID-19 vaccines among health service providers.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted on 28 healthcare providers in Mashhad, Northeast of Iran from March to June 2022. The method of data collection was face-to-face interviews. The purposive method was used for sampling. Data collection continued until the saturation was reached. To analyze the data, the content analysis method was applied, and Maxqda (version 10) software was used.

RESULTS

By analyzing interview transcripts, six themes and ten sub-themes were extracted. Factors that explained employees' reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19 were the opinion of peers, lack of trust in vaccines, fear of vaccination, mistrust to the government and health authorities, low perceived risk of coronavirus disease, and the contradictions of traditional and modern medicine in their approach to controlling the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Among healthcare workers, concerns about the side effects of vaccines were the most influential factors in refusing vaccination. Providing reliable information about vaccines and their safety is key to increasing the trust of health workers in vaccination and facilitating its acceptance.

Health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance worldwide: A systematic review

Objective

Health literacy helps an individual to have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information to make appropriate health decisions. This study aimed to review the association between health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Method

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses steps. Databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, World Health Organization libraries, and Google Scholar were used to search all published articles in the area of health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance until August 1, 2022.

Result

In this review, 1348 articles were retrieved. Finally, 13 articles were included in the review after the removal of duplicates that did not meet our inclusion criteria. In all, 10 articles showed that health literacy was significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. This review also showed that positive perception of the vaccine, vaccine hesitancy, adverse reaction from vaccines, residence, socioeconomic status, level of education, younger age, being a health worker, and positive belief have associations with health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. There was significant heterogeneity in the study population and measurement tools used for health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides comprehensive evidence on health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance globally. There was significant heterogeneity in the study population and measurement tools used for health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Most studies reported that health literacy is significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Therefore, investing in health literacy using different vaccine promotion strategies may improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and health decision-making to decrease the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigation of the influencing factors with the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among the general population of Ardabil, Iran: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Vaccination is one of the most efficient approaches to combating COVID-19 if it is adequately embraced by the general population. Numerous factors influence the uptake or refusal of the booster dose. The goal of this study was to look at the different factors that affect how the general population in Ardabil feels about getting vaccine boosters (annual boosters) for COVID-19 and to evaluate those feelings.

Methods and Materials

In the city of Ardabil, general population, perceptions towards the COVID-19 vaccine booster (annual boosters) dose were evaluated using a cross-sectional survey design between January 2 and March 25, 2022. A questionnaire was developed and filled out by 662 subjects via phone calls from healthcare providers. Descriptive statistics, the Chi-square test, the correlation coefficient, and regression analysis were run for the analysis of quantitative data.

Results

The findings of the research revealed that 238 participants, or 35.9%, had previously gotten the booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccination, while 198 participants, or 29.2%, expressed a desire to do so as soon as feasible. A total of 187 (28.2%) respondents reported not wanting to get a booster dose, and 39 (5.7%) could not decide. In the factors found to affect decisions not to accept regular doses, adverse effects (45.4%) and the presence of misinformation (30%) were the most important. Regression in educational achievement, and following the COVID-19 news showed to be the major predictors of the subjects' attitudes toward the regular COVID-19 vaccine.

Conclusion

The present findings revealed that low confidence in the efficiency of the booster shot and misinformation are two critical factors to consider in educational planning and interventions.

Side effects of Sputnik V, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Covaxin and their associations with other variables among healthcare workers of a tertiary hospital in Iran

BACKGROUND

Misinformation about the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccines' side effects (SEs) has led to concerns about and mistrust of vaccine safety. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccines' SEs.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey-based study on the healthcare workers (HCWs) of a tertiary hospital in Iran, the SEs of Sputnik V, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Covaxin were evaluated through a face-to-face interview by a researcher-made questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 368 HCWs received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The prevalence of people with at least one SE was higher among those who received the Oxford-AstraZeneca (95.8 %) and Sputnik V (92.1 %) vaccines than those who received Covaxin (70.5 %) or Sinopharm (66.7 %). Following the first and second doses, injection site pain (50.3 % and 58.2 %), body/muscle pain (53.5 % and 39.4 %), fever (54.5 % and 32.9 %), headache (41.3 % and 36.5 %), and fatigue (44.4 % and 32.4 %) were the most common SEs. Overall, SEs were often initiated within 12 h and subsided within 72 h of vaccination. The prevalence of SEs after the first dose of Sputnik V was higher among those aged ≤ 31 years (93.3 %) than those aged > 31 years (80.5 %). In the Sputnik V group, the number of SEs experienced after the first dose was higher in women with underlying diseases than those without such diseases. Furthermore, the body mass index of participants with SEs was lower than that of participants without SEs.

CONCLUSION

Compared to Sinopharm or Covaxin, the Sputnik V and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were associated with a higher prevalence of SEs, a greater number of SEs per individual, and more severe SEs.

Predictors of receiving COVID-19 vaccine among adult population in Iran: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is one of the best ways to stop the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this regard, uunderstanding the features related to the intention of different populations to receive the COVID-19 vaccine is essential for an effective vaccination program. This study aimed to investigate the vaccination intention predictors in the general adult population of Iran.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted on social networks, including Telegram, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to investigate predictors associated with the intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines, including sociodemographic characteristics, trust, worry, sources of information, and conspiracy beliefs. The main outcomes included unwillingness, undecidedness, and intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

Out of 780 respondents, 481 (61.6%) reported an intention to be vaccinated, 214 (27.4%) expressed their undecided status, and 85 (10.9%) reported unwillingness to receive any type of COVID-19 vaccine. A higher age (OR undecided = 0.97, 95% CI (0.96-0.99)), (OR unwilling = 0.97, 95% CI (0.95-0.99)); exposure with COVID-19 (OR unwilling = 0.82, 95% CI (0.76-0.89)), (OR undecided = 0.87, 95% CI (0.83-0.93)) were positively associated with vaccination intentions. No/low trust in vaccines, institutions, concerns about the future of the pandemic, and conspiracy beliefs were strongly and negatively associated with COVID-19 vaccination intentions.

CONCLUSION

Most Iranians intended to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Higher vaccine acceptance needs to consider demographic features, exposure history, confidence in vaccines, trust in institutions, concerns, and conspiracy beliefs of people.

Vaccine Literacy and Vaccination: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Vaccine literacy (VL) is an essential component of health literacy and is regarded as the promising technique for eliminating vaccine hesitancy. This review summarizes the relationship between VL and vaccination, including vaccine hesitancy, vaccination attitude, vaccination intention, and vaccination uptake. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies that explored the relationship between VL and vaccination were included, and the PRISMA recommendations were followed. Results: 1523 studies were found, and 21 articles were selected. The earliest article was published in 2015 and focused on the HPV vaccination and VL of female college students. Three studies surveyed parents' VL about childhood vaccinations, and the remaining 17 focused on COVID-19 VL in different groups. Conclusion: Although VL plays a role in determining the level of vaccine hesitancy across various populations, the association remains unclear. In the future, additional assessment methods could be developed and used to conduct prospective cohort and longitudinal studies to determine the causal relationship between VL and vaccination.

The predictive role of parental attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and child vulnerability: A multi-country study on the relationship between parental vaccine hesitancy and financial well-being

Background and purpose

Recent new mutations and increases in transmission of COVID-19 among adolescents and children highlight the importance of identifying which factors influence parental decisions regarding vaccinating their children. The current study aims to explore whether child vulnerability and parents' attitudes toward vaccines mediate the association between perceived financial well-being and vaccine hesitancy among parents.

Method

A predictive, cross-sectional, multi-country online questionnaire was administered with a convenience sample of 6,073 parents (Australia, 2,734; Iran, 2,447; China, 523; Turkey, 369). Participants completed the Parent Attitude About Child Vaccines (PACV), the Child Vulnerability Scale (CVS), a Financial Well-being (FWB) measure, and Parental Vaccine Hesitancy (PVH) questionnaire.

Results

The current study revealed that perceived financial well-being had significant and negative associations with parents' attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and child vulnerability among the Australian sample. Contrary to the Australian findings, results from Chinese participants indicated that financial well-being had significant and positive predictive effects on parent attitudes toward vaccines, child vulnerability, and parental vaccine hesitancy. The results of the Iranian sample revealed that parents' attitudes toward vaccines and child vulnerability significantly and negatively predicted parental vaccine hesitancy.

Conclusion

The current study revealed that a parents' perceived financial well-being had a significant and negative relationship with parental attitudes about vaccines and child vulnerability; however, it did not significantly predict parental vaccine hesitancy among Turkish parents as it did for parents in Australia, Iran, and China. Findings of the study have policy implications for how certain countries may tailor their vaccine-related health messages to parents with low financial wellbeing and parents with vulnerable children.

Evaluation of response to different COVID-19 vaccines in vaccinated healthcare workers in a single center in Iran

Due to the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and emergent administration of various vaccines worldwide, comprehensive studies on the different aspects of vaccines are in demand. This study evaluated antibody response after the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in the Children's Medical Center personnel. The blood samples of 174 healthcare workers were gathered at least 10 days after vaccination. The administered vaccines included Oxford/AstraZeneca, COVAXIN, Sinopharm, and Sputnik V. This study assessed all antibodies employing ELISA methods, including anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody by DiaZist and Pishtazteb kits, anti-SARS-CoV-2-nucleocapsid by Pishtazteb kit, and anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike by Razi kit. The cutoff for the tests' results was calculated according to the instructions of each kit. Totally, 174 individuals with an average age of 40 ± 9 years participated in this study, the proportion of men was 31%, and the frequency of past COVID-19 infection was 66 (38%). Sixteen (9%) personnel received Oxford/AstraZeneca, 28 (16%) COVAXIN, 29 (17%) Sinopharm, and 101 (58%) Sputnik V. anti-SARS-CoV-2-nucleocapsid and anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike were positive in 37 (21%), and 163 (94%) participants and their mean level were more in adenoviral-vectored vaccines (p value < 0.0001). Neutralizing antibody was positive in 74% using Pishtazteb kit while 87% using DiaZist kit. All antibodies' levels were significantly higher in those with a past COVID-19 infection (p value < 0.0001). In conclusion, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Sputnik V had a similar outcome of inducing high levels of anti-SARS-Cov-2-spike and neutralizing antibodies, which were more than Sinopharm and COVAXIN. The titers of Anti-SARS-CoV-2-nucleocapsid antibody were low in all of these four vaccines.

"Intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers: a comparison between two surveys"

BACKGROUND

Considering the importance of intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers and its role in maintaining their health and inhibiting the epidemic spread of Covid-19, the present study was done to identify the changes in intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine rate in two different time points and it's determinants based on the dimensions of the health belief model among healthcare workers in Iran.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional surveys performed to investigate COVID-19 vaccination intent and associated factors based on the health belief model. The first conducted on 1244 participants from August 18 to 23, 2020, and the second on 1514 participants from February 5 to April 29, 2021, both using a questionnaire of intent to accept COVID-19 vaccination. The questionnaire distribution platform in both surveys was similarly, WhatsApp and Telegram social and working virtual groups of HCWs. Data were analyzed with SPSS-16 software for descriptive and analytical statistics.

RESULTS

In the first survey, 58.4% (95% CI: 0.55-0.61%) of healthcare workers intended to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the rate dropped to 45.7% (95% CI: 0.43-0.48%) in the second survey (P < 0.001). The regression analysis indicated six factors that were significantly associated with higher intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine: being a female (OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.11-3.03)), history of Covid-19 infection (OR = 1.54, 95% CI (1.09-2.18), perceptions of Covid-19 disease (OR = 1.13, 95% CI (1.01-1.28)), perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccine (OR = 1.34, 95% CI (1.22-1.47)), prosocial norms for COVID-19 vaccination (OR = 1.25, 95% CI (1.21-1.29)), and COVID-19 vaccine safety/cost concerns (OR = 1.25, 95% CI (1.17-1.33)).

CONCLUSIONS

Present study showed an undesirable rate of intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers, especially decreasing over the time, emphasize the need of interventions to promote healthcare workers' intention to receive the vaccine and reduce the spread of COVID-19 disease.