The influence of information sources on intention changes to receive COVID-19 vaccination: A prospective cohort study in Japan

Factors affecting motivation for receiving a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine among Japanese university students and staff: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey

Understanding the factors that influence people's decisions regarding vaccination is essential to promote vaccination. We aimed to clarify the motivations for receiving booster vaccines. We conducted a paper-based questionnaire distributed during January-February 2022 involving students and faculty staff who received the first COVID-19 vaccination at the mass vaccination program during June-September 2021 at Keio University. A total of 1725 participants were enrolled, and all completed the survey. Among these, 64.9% reported a significant adverse event (AEs) affecting daily life after the second vaccine. "Fear of severe COVID-19 illness" (72.6%) was the most common reason for getting vaccinated, followed by "concern of infecting others" (68.4%) and "fear of COVID-19 infection itself" (68.3%). Television emerged as the most influential source of information (80%), followed by university information (50.2%) and social networking sites (42.8%). Multivariate analysis revealed "fear of severe COVID-19 illness", "fear of COVID-19 infection itself", and "trust in the efficacy and safety of the vaccines in general" were significantly correlated with willingness to receive paid vaccinations. The severity of AEs and source of information were not related to participants' willingness to receive booster vaccinations. Participants with positive reasons for vaccination were more likely to accept a third dose.

Vaccination status, incidence of adverse events, and awareness of COVID-19 vaccine among outpatients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer has been identified as a risk factor for severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease (COVID-19), underscoring the importance of recommending COVID-19 vaccinations to patients with cancer. However, few reports have focused on the vaccination status and the incidence of adverse events among patients with cancer. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the vaccination status, incidence of adverse events, concerns, and anxiety related to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer. In addition, we explored the utilization of information sources by these patients and the ease of use.

METHODS

A survey was conducted among outpatients undergoing chemotherapy who received medication counseling from a pharmacist at Juntendo University Hospital. Responses were gathered from 60 out of the 143 participants. Of the respondents, 96.7% had received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

Common adverse events included pain at the injection site, fever, and fatigue, which were experienced by nearly half of the respondents. Approximately 80% expressed some concern regarding vaccination, with predominant concerns about timing in the context of ongoing cancer treatment and surgery. Among the respondents, 41.7% consulted primary care physicians regarding the vaccine, with only one mentioning consultation with hospital pharmacists. Notably, primary care physicians were considered the most approachable and useful healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that patients with cancer can safely receive the vaccine, comparable to patients without cancer. However, they still harbor concerns, even when seeking advice from primary care physicians. Few patients consulted pharmacists about vaccination, highlighting an opportunity for pharmacist intervention. Pharmacists fostering trust with patients with cancer is imperative to explore pharmacist intervention methods to promote the continued administration of COVID-19 vaccines and enhance the quality of life for them.

Promoter or barrier? Assessing how social media predicts Covid-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy: A systematic review of primary series and booster vaccine investigations

RATIONALE

Prior research indicates that social media is primarily a negative contributor to Covid-19 vaccine outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The current systematic review of Covid-19 primary series and booster vaccine investigations provides a more nuanced and comprehensive assessment of this association by exploring a) how distinct social media judgments and actions predict different vaccine-related outcomes - perceptions and intentions/uptake, b) both primary series and booster findings, c) types of social media, and d) comparisons across different populations.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of published research examining the link between social media and COVID-19 vaccine outcomes - judgments, intentions, and uptake. Overall, we identified 113 published articles.

RESULTS

The findings reveal complex associations between distinct social media predictors and these outcomes. The most consistent negative relationships emerge within studies looking at 'social media as an information source,' 'trust', and 'general social media use/passive exposure' as predictors of less favorable vaccine judgments and intentions/uptake. Conversely, studies focused on 'information seeking' indicate more mixed results. Among the few booster investigations, there are more positive than negative associations between social media predictors and Covid-19 vaccine intentions. Across different social media platforms and sample populations, social media was a less robust/consistent negative predictor of COVID-19 judgments and intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

While social media can contribute to more negative COVID-19 vaccine judgments and motivations, the consistency of this relationship may vary across populations, the platforms users access, and the nature of exposure. Overall, social media campaigns promoting COVID-19 vaccines should employ distinct strategies to target those individuals that value social media as an information resource.

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

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

Potential Risk of Overlooking Biased Reporting of Vaccination against Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019: Lessons from Japan's Experience with the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

Vaccination is a crucial and evidence-based measure against novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) implemented worldwide, including in Japan, where more than 67% of the population has received more than three doses of vaccination as of February 2023. Although some common adverse reactions of the vaccine, such as fever and arm pain, have been reported, serious adverse reactions resulting in death, such as myocarditis and Guillain-Barré syndrome, are rare. However, the biased reporting of the adverse reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine in the Japanese media has recently become more frequent, which is similar to the past biased reporting on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Previously, the media's biased reporting on the HPV vaccine caused public mistrust in vaccines, leading to a drop in vaccination rates in Japan. Thus, overlooking the sensational reporting of the media on the current COVID-19 vaccine may potentially influence people's health behavior and awareness in the long run. Actually, experts worldwide agree that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, and the media reports are inconsistent with the observations. Thus, it is necessary to urge the media to release accurate information to prevent tragedies caused by biased reporting. Moreover, it is essential to correct misinformation in reporting, disseminate accurate information from media outlets, such as Internet news and video-sharing sites, and promote awareness among people to support the vaccination rate against COVID-19.

Characteristics of Top-Searched Individuals in Japan's Yen for Docs Conflicts of Interest Database During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose Transparency in healthcare has led to increased public disclosure of doctors' conflicts of interest, with the "Yen for Docs Database" in Japan emerging as a pivotal source. Nevertheless, there remains ambiguity regarding the backgrounds and influence of highly-searched persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective of this study was to examine if the database was utilized for its intended purpose in 2021, a year marked by the introduction of vaccines and treatments, the addition of new COVID-19-related data, and the frequent appearances of expert statements in various media outlets. Methods We conducted a descriptive analysis on the 10 most frequently searched individuals in the "Yen for Docs Database" between August 27 and September 23, 2021, and determined the amount of money they received from pharmaceutical companies and other organizations over the four-year period between 2016 and 2019. To characterize frequently searched individuals' academic profiles and appearances in the mass media, we identified their h-index and affiliation, their activity on Twitter, and the number of TV appearances. Results There were 72,904 searches during the study period, with the top person accounting for 4,905 of those searches. All top 10 were male, mostly affiliated with universities and specialists in infectious diseases or related fields. Their median number of COVID-19 articles was five, and the median h-index was 34. Four of these top 10 had Twitter accounts, with followers ranging from 12,000 to 195,000. The median amount received from pharmaceutical entities over four years was $154,930, ranging from $809 to $705,502. Conclusions In the Yen for Docs Database, a significant portion of searches during the COVID-19 pandemic was concentrated on a selected group of healthcare professionals with considerable payments over the years, and they exhibited prominent academic and media profiles. These observations highlight the need for more transparent conflicts of interest disclosure among physicians with public visibility.