"Until I Know It's Safe for Me": The Role of Timing in COVID-19 Vaccine Decision-Making and Vaccine Hesitancy

Sociocultural Antecedents and Mechanisms of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Mexican-Origin Youth

Mexican-origin youth, as a large and growing population among U.S. youth, have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Understanding what, when, and how sociocultural factors may influence their COVID-19 vaccine uptake could inform current and future pandemic-response interventions promoting vaccination behaviors among Mexican-origin youth. The current study takes a developmental approach to reveal the long-term and short-term sociocultural antecedents of 198 Mexican-origin adolescents' COVID-19 vaccination uptake behaviors and explores the underlying mechanism of these associations based on the Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior model. The current study adopted Wave 1 (2012-2015) and Wave 4 (2021-2022) self-reported data from a larger study. Analyses were conducted to examine four mediation models for four sociocultural antecedents-daily discrimination, ethnic discrimination, foreigner stress, and family economic stress-separately. Consistent indirect effects of higher levels of concurrent sociocultural risk factors on a lower probability of COVID-19 vaccine uptake were observed to occur through less knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccines and less positive attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccines at Wave 4. Significant direct effects, but in opposite directions, were found for the associations between Wave 1 ethnic discrimination/Wave 4 daily discrimination and the probability of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The findings highlight the importance of considering prior and concurrent sociocultural antecedents and the Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior pathway leading to COVID-19 vaccination uptake among Mexican-origin youth and suggest that the impact of discrimination on COVID-19 vaccination uptake may depend on the type (e.g., daily or ethnic) and the context (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic or not) of discrimination experienced.

Feasibility of Provision and Vaccine Hesitancy at a Central Hospital COVID-19 Vaccination Site in South Africa after Four Waves of the Pandemic

BACKGROUND

As mortality declined significantly during the fourth and fifth waves compared to previous waves, the question of the future role of COVID-19 vaccination arose among both experts and the public in South Africa. Turning attention away from the general public, now considered to be at very low risk of severe COVID-19 disease, a commonly held view was that the vaccination campaign should focus only on those who remain highly vulnerable to severe disease and death from COVID-19. Primary amongst this group are patients with common chronic diseases attending hospital outpatient departments. We hypothesized that providing COVID-19 vaccinations on-site at a central hospital will increase uptake for the patients with co-morbid chronic conditions who need them most in the Omicron phase of the pandemic.

AIM

Evaluate the acceptability, need, and uptake of a hospital-based vaccination site for patients attending the medical hospital outpatient departments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess vaccination uptake, coverage, and hesitancy in people attending a central hospital, to determine factors associated with and influencing vaccination uptake, and to document implementation and assess acceptability of the vaccination project among staff and persons attending the hospital.

METHODS

Mixed-methods study using quantitative and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

Of the 317 participants enrolled in the study, 229 (72%) had already received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 296 participants were eligible for a first vaccination, additional vaccination, or booster vaccination according to the South African Department of Health guidelines. Of those previously vaccinated, 65% opted for an additional dose on the day it was offered (same day). Only 13 previously unvaccinated participants (15% of vaccine naïve participants) opted for vaccination, increasing vaccine coverage with at least one dose from 72% to 76%. Approximately 24% (n = 75) of all participants refused vaccination (vaccine hesitant). Variables tested for an association with vaccination status demonstrated that age reached statistical significance. Emerging themes in the qualitative analysis included perceptions of vulnerability, vaccine safety and efficacy concerns, information gaps regarding vaccinations, the value of convenience in the decision to vaccinate, and the role of health promoters.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that it is logistically acceptable to provide a vaccination site at a large hospital targeting patients attending outpatient services for chronic medical conditions. This service also benefits accompanying persons and hospital staff. Access and convenience of the vaccination site influence decision-making, increasing the opportunity to vaccinate. However, vaccine hesitancy is widespread with just under one-quarter of all those offered vaccinations remaining unvaccinated. Strengthening health education and patient-clinician engagement about the benefits of vaccination is essential to reach highly vulnerable populations routinely attending hospital outpatient departments with an appropriate vaccination program.

"Let's get back to normal": emotions mediate the effects of persuasive messages on willingness to vaccinate for COVID-19

Objective

We examined the effectiveness of three different messages for persuading individuals to get vaccinated against COVID-19, and the role that emotions play in persuasion.

Methods

Four hundred-thirty-six participants reported their concern about the COVID-19 pandemic and confidence/hesitancy toward vaccines. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three text conditions: (1) self-interest: a persuasive message that focused on how much of a "serious threat COVID-19 is to you," and to get vaccinated to "protect yourself"; (2) self-interest + altruistic: a persuasive message that focused on the "threat to you and your community" and to get vaccinated to "protect you and your loved ones"; (3) self-interest + altruistic + normal: a persuasive message that included (2) but added "This is the only way we can get back to a normal life."; and, (4) a baseline control: no text. After reading, participants reported their emotions toward COVID-19 vaccines and their willingness to get vaccinated.

Results

Individuals in the self-interest + altruistic + normal condition were more willing to get vaccinated compared to the control condition and self-interest + altruistic condition. However, there were no differences in willingness between the self-interest + altruistic + normal condition and the self-interest condition. Moreover, emotions mediated relations between vaccine confidence/hesitancy and willingness.

Conclusion

A message that focuses on "getting back to normal" can achieve important public health action by increasing vaccine uptake to protect the population. Future work is needed across multiple countries and contexts (i.e., non-pandemic) to assess message effectiveness.

I want to be safe: understanding the main drivers behind vaccination choice throughout the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Despite being a major advancement in modern medicine, vaccines face widespread hesitancy and refusal, posing challenges to immunization campaigns. The COVID-19 pandemic accentuated vaccine hesitancy, emphasizing the pivotal role of beliefs in efficacy and safety on vaccine acceptance rates. This study explores the influence of efficacy and safety perceptions on vaccine uptake in Italy during the pandemic.

METHODS

We administered a 70-item questionnaire to a representative sample of 600 Italian speakers. Participants were tasked with assessing the perceived effectiveness and safety of each vaccine dose, along with providing reasons influencing their vaccination choices. Additionally, we conducted an experimental manipulation, exploring the effects of four framing messages that emphasized safety and/or efficacy on participants' willingness to receive a hypothetical fourth vaccine dose. Furthermore, participants were asked about their level of trust in the scientific community and public authorities, as well as their use of different information channels for obtaining COVID-19-related information.

RESULTS

Our study reveals a dynamic shift in vaccine efficacy and safety perceptions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially influencing vaccination compliance. Initially perceived as more effective than safe, this assessment reversed by the time of the third dose. Beliefs regarding safety, rather than efficacy, played a significant role in anticipating future vaccinations (e.g., the booster dose). Safety-focused messages positively affected vaccination intent, while efficacy-focused messages showed limited impact. We also observed a changing trend in reasons for vaccination, with a decline in infection-related reasons and an increase in social related ones. Furthermore, trust dynamics evolved differently for public authorities and the scientific community.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine perception is a dynamic process shaped by evolving factors like efficacy and safety perceptions, trust levels, and individual motivations. Our study sheds light on the complex dynamics that underlie the perception of vaccine safety and efficacy, and their impact on willingness to vaccinate. We discuss these results in light of bounded rationality, loss aversion and classic utility theory.

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: ambiguity in decision-making

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women/people were identified as an at-risk group of severe COVID-19 disease. Consequently, vaccine uptake among this group became a public health priority. However, the relationship between pregnancy and vaccination decision-making is complex, and the heightened uncertainty and anxiety produced through the pandemic further exacerbated this immunization decision. This study explores COVID-19 vaccination decision-making during pregnancy in Aotearoa New Zealand by using an online story completion survey tool. Ninety-five responses were received and analysed using thematic analysis where ambiguity was a core facet within and across stories. Three ambiguities were identified, including who makes the decision (agential), what the risks are (risk) and how immunity to this threat can be best achieved (immunity). We discuss the implications of this ambiguity and how the strong desire to protect the baby persisted across accounts. The recognition of the rather persistent ambiguity in vaccination decision-making helps conceptualize influencing factors taken into account in a more nuanced manner for further research, public health campaigns and health professionals. Future public health campaigns can consider redistributing responsibility for vaccination decision-making in pregnancy, traverse an either/or perspective of 'natural' and 'artificial' immunity-boosting and consider how risk is perceived through anecdotes and viral immediacy.

COVID-19 Vaccine's Speed to Market and Vaccine Hesitancy: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Background

This paper aims to assess the extent to which the COVID-19 vaccine's speed to market affected Canadian residents' decision to remain unvaccinated.

Method

A cross-sectional survey conducted in late 2021 asked participants whether they had received the vaccine and their reasons for abstaining.

Results

Of the 2,712 participants who completed the survey, 8.9% remained unvaccinated. Unvaccinated respondents who selected "They made the vaccine too fast" (59.8%), were significantly more likely to identify as white, believe that the COVID-19 pandemic was not serious and have an unvaccinated social circle.

Conclusion

Should the COVID-19 vaccine rapid regulatory process be expanded, more patients may refuse treatment than if traditional timelines are followed.

Parents' Intentions, Concerns and Information Needs about COVID-19 Vaccination in New Jersey: A Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the World Health Organization identified vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite local and nationwide public health efforts, adolescent COVID-19 vaccination uptake in the US remains low. This study explored parents' perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing hesitancy to inform future outreach and education campaigns.

METHODS

We conducted two rounds of individual interviews via Zoom in May-September 2021 and January-February 2022, with parents of adolescents from the Greater Newark Area of New Jersey, a densely populated area with historically marginalized groups that had low COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Data collection and analysis was guided by the Increasing Vaccination Model and WHO Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix. Interview transcripts were double-coded and thematically analyzed in NVivo.

RESULTS

We interviewed 22 parents (17 in English, 5 in Spanish). Nearly half (45%) were Black and 41% were Hispanic. Over half (54%) were born outside of the US. Most of the parents described that their adolescents had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. All but one parent had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite strong vaccination acceptance for themselves, parents remained hesitant about vaccinating their adolescents. They were mostly concerned about the safety and potential side effects due to the novelty of the vaccine. Parents sought information about the vaccines online, through healthcare providers and authorities, and at community spaces. Interpersonal communication exposed parents to misinformation, though some personal connections to severe COVID-19 illness motivated vaccination. Historical mistreatment by the healthcare system and politicization of the vaccine contributed to parents' mixed feelings about the trustworthiness of those involved with developing, promoting, and distributing COVID-19 vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified multilevel influences on COVID-19 vaccine-specific hesitancy among a racially/ethnically diverse sample of parents with adolescents that can inform future vaccination interventions. To increase vaccine confidence, future COVID booster campaigns and other vaccination efforts should disseminate information through trusted healthcare providers in clinical and also utilize community settings by addressing specific safety concerns and promoting vaccine effectiveness.

Sociocultural and moral narratives influencing the decision to vaccinate among rheumatic disease patients: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Vaccination is a process that involves individual, social, and ethical aspects, beyond public governance of vaccines or vaccination as a public health concern. The aim of this study is to describe the sociocultural and moral narratives that influence the decision to vaccinate in general and to vaccinate against COVID-19 specifically, among patients at the rheumatology units of two hospitals.

METHODS

Qualitative study involving individual semi-structured interviews following an interview guide. We conducted a thematic analysis using the ATLAS.ti software, with further triangulation to verify concordance and aid in the interpretation of the data from a medical anthropology framework and using a narrative ethics approach to gain insight into the participants' underlying moral values.

RESULTS

We interviewed 37 patients in total, along with 3 rheumatologists. Five core themes emerged from the analysis to understand the decision to vaccinate: (1) information about vaccines and disease, (2) perceived risk-benefit of vaccination, (3) the physician-patient relationship, (4) governance of vaccination programs, (5) attitudes towards vaccines. Individual and family experiences with vaccination are diverse depending on the type of vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine, as a new medical technology, is met with more controversy leading to hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to vaccinate among Mexican rheumatic disease patients can sometimes involve doubt and distrust, especially for those with a lupus diagnosis, but ultimately there is acceptance in most cases. Though patients make and value autonomous decisions, there is a collective process involving sociocultural and ethical aspects. Key points • The complexity of vaccine decision-making is better identified through a narrative, qualitative approach like the one used in this study, as opposed to solely quantitative approaches • Sociocultural and moral perspectives of vaccination shape decision-making and, therefore, highlight the importance of including patients in the development of effective clinical practice guidelines as well as ethically justified public policy • Sociohistorical context and personal experiences of immunization influence vaccine decision-making much more than access to biomedical information about vaccines, showing that approaches based on the information deficit model are inadequate to fight vaccine hesitancy.

COVID-19 vaccination intentions and subsequent uptake: An analysis of the role of marginalisation in society using British longitudinal data

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has previously been modelled using data on intentions - expressed prior to vaccine availability. Once vaccines became widely available, it became possible to model hesitancy using actual vaccination uptake data. This paper estimates the determinants of the joint distribution of COVID-19 vaccination intentions (declared before the release of any vaccine) and actual vaccination take-up (when it was widely available across the age distribution). We use high quality longitudinal data (UK Household Longitudinal Study) collected during the pandemic in the UK, merged to a wide variety of individual characteristics collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our estimation draws on pre-Covid values of variables for a sample that includes 10,073 observations from the September 2021 wave. The contribution of this paper is to model hesitancy and uptake jointly. The work shows that people who might be regarded as marginalised in society (measured, before the pandemic began) are less likely to say that they intend to be vaccinated and they go on to also be more likely to actually remain unvaccinated. It also shows that there is a large positive correlation between the unobservable determinants of intention and of uptake. This high positive correlation has an important implication - that information campaigns can be reasonably well profiled to target specific groups on the basis of intention data alone. We also show that changing one's mind is not correlated with observable data. This is consistent with two explanations. Firstly, the new information available on the arrival of vaccines, that they are safe and effective, may be more optimistic than was originally assumed. Secondly, individuals may have been more pessimistic about the effects associated with infection before vaccines became available.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy is not all a conspiracy theory: A qualitative study from Iran

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has burdened disastrous mortality and morbidity rates in society all over the world. While vaccination is one of the most effective immunization methods to control infectious diseases globally, some have avoided receiving the vaccine. We have aimed to investigate the reasons behind the hesitancy of vaccination among healthcare workers.

METHOD

We performed ten semi-structured interviews with volunteered healthcare workers of Rasoul Akram hospital. Then each interview was anonymized, and Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method was used to analyze the interviews.

RESULTS

Our data analysis revealed thirty-eight different codes as reasons for vaccination hesitancy among our interviewees. All these thirty-eight codes were grouped into ten sub-themes, and these sub-themes were further grouped into our four main themes: 1. Fear of side effects, 2. Distrust, 3. Inefficiency, and 4. Non-necessity. Fear of side effects was the most frequent reason that interviewees mentioned. Also, Half of the interviewees mentioned distrust as a reason for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. At least once, all interviewees mentioned that they believed vaccination is inefficient. Some interviewees had beliefs and reasons that made them assume vaccination is simply not necessary.

CONCLUSION

Fear of side effects, distrust, inefficiency, and non-necessity were the reasons that our participants refused to get vaccinated. Fear of side effects and distrust were the most common reasons that led to non-vaccination.

"They're trying to bribe you and taking away your freedoms": COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in communities with traditionally low vaccination rates

Vaccination is an essential public health intervention to control the COVID-19 pandemic. A minority of Canadians, however, remain hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, while others outright refuse them. We conducted focus groups to gauge perceptions and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in people who live in a region with historically low rates of childhood vaccination. Participants discussed their perception of COVID-19 vaccines and their intention to get vaccinated, and the low rate of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Manitoba's Southern Health Region compared to other regions in Canada. We identified three drivers of vaccine hesitancy: (1) risk perceptions about COVID-19 and the vaccines developed to protect against it, (2) religious and conservative views; and (3) distrust in government and science. Participant proposed recommendations for improving communication and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines included: public health messages emphasising the benefits of vaccination; addressing the community's specific concerns and dispelling misinformation; highlighting vaccine safety; and emphasising vaccination as a desirable behaviour from a religious perspective. Understanding the specific anxieties elicited by COVID-19 vaccines in areas with low childhood immunization rates can inform risk communication strategies tailored to increase vaccination in these specific regions. This study adds important information on potential reasons for vaccine hesitancy in areas with historically low rates of childhood vaccination, and provides important lessons learned for future emergencies in terms of vaccine hesitancy drivers and effective risk communication to increase vaccine uptake.

Vaccine Hesitancy: Contemporary Issues and Historical Background

Vaccination, despite being recognized as one of the most effective primary public health measures, is viewed as unsafe and unnecessary by an increasing number of individuals. Anxiety about vaccines and vaccination programs leading to vaccine hesitancy results from a complex mix of social and political influences, cultural and religious beliefs, the availability of and ability to interpret health and scientific information, and personal and population experiences of health systems and government policies. Vaccine hesitancy is becoming a serious threat to vaccination programs, and was identified as one of the World Health Organization’s top ten global health threats in 2019. The negative impact of anti-vaccination movements is frequently cited as one of the major reasons for rising vaccine hesitancy amongst the general public world-wide. This review discusses the various issues surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vaccine movement, starting with the definitions of vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vaccine movement in their early history and in the modern era, before discussing the key drivers of vaccine hesitancy, particularly across different regions of the world, with a focus on various countries with low-, middle-, or high-income economies with different socio-economic populations. The review concludes with the impact of vaccine hesitancy on herd immunity and social, psychological, and public health measures to counter vaccine hesitancy.

Better Late Than Never: Predictors of Delayed COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Poland

In this study, regression models were created to explain the increase of COVID-19 vaccination rates in 378 Polish sub-regions. In order to trace the factors that could explain the willingness to delay vaccination, vaccination rates were compared for age groups of 20 years and more for 30 June 2020 and 31 January 2021. Initially high vaccination rates, rather than leading to the gradual exhaustion of the pool of those wishing to get vaccinated, were a very good predictor of the share of the remainder willing to do so, which increased the divergence between sub-regions in nominal vaccination rates. Support for Eurosceptic and anti-establishment parties was a strong predictor of persistent vaccine hesitancy. Ideological divergence from the mainstream appeared to reinforce vaccine hesitancy, and this relationship remained highly relevant even when controlling for possible time or spatial lag. Markers of social inclusion and social capital—voter turnout and employment rate—remained statistically significant even when controlling for time lag, thus implying clear relevance of trust in the public message. The share of the population with higher education remained a highly relevant factor as well, though in the 20–39 age bracket it predicted a higher vaccination rate, while in all older brackets it was a negative predictor—this implies that those people had already made up their minds. Delaying vaccination seems predominantly explainable by political views, as well as social exclusion and the historical specificity of sub-regions. On a regional level, there was actually a paradoxical Spearmans Rho correlation (0.641) between the share of population refusing mandatory vaccination for kids and the percentage of people receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, which further undermines the idea that overall observed vaccine hesitancy was in any meaningful way affected by anti-vaccine movements.

Better Late Than Never: Predictors of Delayed COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Poland

In this study, regression models were created to explain the increase of COVID-19 vaccination rates in 378 Polish sub-regions. In order to trace the factors that could explain the willingness to delay vaccination, vaccination rates were compared for age groups of 20 years and more for 30 June 2020 and 31 January 2021. Initially high vaccination rates, rather than leading to the gradual exhaustion of the pool of those wishing to get vaccinated, were a very good predictor of the share of the remainder willing to do so, which increased the divergence between sub-regions in nominal vaccination rates. Support for Eurosceptic and anti-establishment parties was a strong predictor of persistent vaccine hesitancy. Ideological divergence from the mainstream appeared to reinforce vaccine hesitancy, and this relationship remained highly relevant even when controlling for possible time or spatial lag. Markers of social inclusion and social capital—voter turnout and employment rate—remained statistically significant even when controlling for time lag, thus implying clear relevance of trust in the public message. The share of the population with higher education remained a highly relevant factor as well, though in the 20–39 age bracket it predicted a higher vaccination rate, while in all older brackets it was a negative predictor—this implies that those people had already made up their minds. Delaying vaccination seems predominantly explainable by political views, as well as social exclusion and the historical specificity of sub-regions. On a regional level, there was actually a paradoxical Spearmans Rho correlation (0.641) between the share of population refusing mandatory vaccination for kids and the percentage of people receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, which further undermines the idea that overall observed vaccine hesitancy was in any meaningful way affected by anti-vaccine movements.