1
|
Freeman EE, Strahan AG, Smith LR, Judd AD, Samarakoon U, Chen G, King AJ, Blumenthal KG. The impact of COVID-19 vaccine reactions on secondary vaccine hesitancy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2024; 132:630-636.e1. [PMID: 38232816 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2024.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2023] [Revised: 12/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 01/19/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary and booster vaccinations are critical for mitigating COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. Future booster vaccine campaigns rely on an increased understanding of vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate self-reported allergic and skin vaccine reactions as factors potentially associated with vaccine hesitancy in a nationwide vaccine allergy registry. METHODS Responses to survey questions concerning COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, coded from free text by 2 independent reviewers. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between changed negative perception and respondent demographics, vaccination history, and reaction characteristics. RESULTS A total of 993 individuals (median of 46 years [IQR, 36-59], 88% female, 82% White) self-reported reactions to COVID-19 vaccination. Reactions included the following: delayed large local skin reaction (40%), hives/urticaria (32%), immediate large local skin reaction (3%), swelling (3%), anaphylaxis (2%), and other or unspecified (20%). Most respondents were initially unconcerned about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines (56%). After reactions, 401 of 993 (40%) report negative change in perception of vaccination, with more than half of these respondents (n = 211, 53%) citing their reasoning as a negative experience with adverse effects. Of 102 individuals asked about future vaccination, 79 (77%) indicated that they were unlikely or very unlikely to receive future COVID-19 vaccinations. Increased negative perception after reaction was associated with younger age, later COVID-19 vaccination dose number, and reaction type. CONCLUSION Our findings reveal that an individual's experience with allergic or cutaneous adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination affects attitudes and decision-making regarding future vaccination, even in initially non-hesitant individuals. Further investigation of secondary vaccine hesitancy is necessary for adapting public health messaging to this important population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther E Freeman
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; The Mongan Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Alexis G Strahan
- Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Liam R Smith
- The Mongan Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Allen D Judd
- The Mongan Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Upeka Samarakoon
- The Mongan Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Andrew J King
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; The Mongan Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kimberly G Blumenthal
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; The Mongan Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Silver D, Kim Y, Piltch-Loeb R, Abramson D. One year later: What role did trust in public officials and the medical profession play in decisions to get a booster and to overcome vaccine hesitancy? Prev Med Rep 2024; 38:102626. [PMID: 38375180 PMCID: PMC10874870 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2023] [Revised: 01/18/2024] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 02/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Physicians may have an important role to play in promoting boosters as well as reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, but the relationship between hesitancy and trust in the medical profession and these behaviors has been underexplored. A representative online panel of 1,967 US adults that included oversamples of minoritized and rural populations were surveyed in April 2021 and June 2022 regarding their booster and vaccine status and intentions, their views of the medical profession, and their levels of trust in their own doctors, and national and state/local officials. Eighty percent of those vaccinated in 2021 had received a booster by 2022, while fewer than half of those initially reluctant to get a vaccine had gotten one by Wave 2 of the survey. Mean factor scores were calculated for response to a validated scale measuring trust in the medical profession. Linear and logistic regression models estimated the relationship between these factors scores and trust in other officials for those vaccinated as well initial hesitaters/refusers in Wave 1, controlling for population factors. Trust in one's own physician was associated with those vaccinated/eager to be vaccinated getting a booster, while trust in the medical profession was associated with getting a vaccine among those who had previously refused or were hesitant. Trust in other experts was not significantly associated with these behaviors, but wide confidence intervals suggest a need for future research. Innovative strategies, including mobilizing the medical community is needed to address reluctance, uncertainty, and distrust of therapeutic agents in pandemic response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana Silver
- Department of Public Health Policy and Management, NYU School of Global Public Health, United States
| | - Yeerae Kim
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, NYU School of Global Public Health, United States
| | - Rachael Piltch-Loeb
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, NYU School of Global Public Health, United States
| | - David Abramson
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, NYU School of Global Public Health, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy in Malaysia: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:vaccines11030638. [PMID: 36992222 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11030638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2023] [Revised: 03/06/2023] [Accepted: 03/08/2023] [Indexed: 03/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Vaccination is a key public health strategy that is known to be effective in mitigating the risk of infection and severe disease. However, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage (<50%) of Malaysians who have received a booster for the COVID-19 vaccine has remained stagnant over a year. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of and the factors associated with hesitancy toward the second dose of booster for the COVID-19 vaccine. A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted from August to November 2022. The Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was used to assess the hesitancy toward the second dose of booster for the COVID-19 vaccine. Simple and multiple factors logistic regressions were used to determine the predictors of hesitancy. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Data from 798 respondents were included in the analysis. The prevalence of hesitancy toward the second booster of the COVID-19 vaccine was 26.7%. The predictors of second-booster hesitancy were older age (AOR = 1.040, 95 CI = 1.022, 1.058), having received the third dose (first booster) because of instruction by the government (AOR = 2.125, 95% CI = 1.380, 3.274), concern about serious long term side effects of the vaccine (AOR = 4.010, 95% CI = 2.218, 7.250), and opinions of close friends and immediate family members that the booster is harmful (AOR = 2.201, 95% CI = 1.280, 3.785). Conversely, factors that appear to reduce vaccine booster hesitancy were acceptance of the third dose due to the high number of cases and the increasing rate of infection (AOR = 0.548, 95% CI = 0.317, 0.947), the belief that the vaccine will decrease the risk of getting the infection (AOR = 0.491, 95% CI = 0.277, 0.870), and opinions of close friends and immediate family members that the booster is helpful (AOR = 0.479, 95% CI = 0.273, 0.840). In conclusion, more than one-fifth of Malaysians were hesitant to take the second booster of the COVID-19 vaccine. This suggests that appropriate steps that increase vaccine acceptance, taking into consideration the findings of the present study, are needed to address this issue and to foster more positive attitudes toward vaccination. The survey was available in three main languages but limited to people with internet access; hence, it would likely be biased toward younger adults and social media users and exclude those with limited or no internet access, in particular older people. Therefore, the results are not representative of the Malaysian population at large and caution should be exercised when interpreting the findings.
Collapse
|