Parental and provider vaccine hesitancy and non-timely childhood vaccination in Switzerland

ObjectiveAlthough medical providers are a trusted vaccination information source for parents, they do not universally support vaccination. Complementary medicine (CM) providers are particularly likely to hold vaccine hesitant (VH) views, and VH parents often consult with them. Little research compares VH of parents and providers, and if and how each is associated with uptake of recommended childhood vaccines.MethodsWe defined non-timely receipt as recommended vaccines given > 1 month later than officially recommended, based on vaccination records. We administered versions of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) 5-item survey instrument to 1256 parents and their children’s pediatricians (N = 112, 40 CM-oriented, 72 biomedical [not CM-oriented]) to identify moderately (PACV-score 5–6) and highly (PACV-score 7+) hesitant providers/parents. We obtained multivariable adjusted odds ratios to test relationships between parental VH and provider type/VH, and between non-timely receipt of selected childhood vaccines and parental VH and provider type/VH.ResultsNo biomedical providers were VH, 9 CM providers were moderately VH, and 17 were highly VH. Parents seeing moderately and highly hesitant providers had adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for being VH = 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1–14.0) and AOR = 31.3 (95% CI 16.8–58.3), respectively. Across all vaccine uptake endpoints, children of moderately and highly hesitant parents had 1.9–3.8 and 7.1–12.3 higher odds of non-timely vaccination, and children seeing highly hesitant CM providers had 4.9–9.4 higher odds. Children seeing moderately hesitant CM providers had 3.3 higher odds of non-timely vaccination for the 1st dose of measles and 3.5 higher odds for 1st dose of polio/pertussis/tetanus.ConclusionVH by both parents and providers each is associated with non-timely childhood vaccination. As VH parents are more likely to consult with VH providers, interventions aimed at increasing timely vaccination need to primarily target VH providers and their clients.     

Prevalence of influenza-specific vaccination hesitancy among adults in the United States, 2018

BackgroundThe role of vaccine hesitancy on influenza vaccination is not clearly understood. Low influenza vaccination coverage in U.S. adults suggests that a multitude of factors may be responsible for under-vaccination or non-vaccination including vaccine hesitancy. Understanding the role of influenza vaccination hesitancy is important for targeted messaging and intervention to increase influenza vaccine confidence and uptake. The objective of this study was to quantify the prevalence of adult influenza vaccination hesitancy (IVH) and examine association of IVH beliefs with sociodemographic factors and early-season influenza vaccination.MethodsA four-question validated IVH module was included in the 2018 National Internet Flu Survey. Weighted proportions and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify correlates of IVH beliefs.ResultsOverall, 36.9% of adults were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination; 18.6% expressed concerns about vaccination side effects; 14.8% personally knew someone with serious side effects; and 35.6% reported that their healthcare provider was not the most trusted source of information about influenza vaccinations. Influenza vaccination ranged from 15.3 to 45.2 percentage points lower among adults self-reporting any of the four IVH beliefs. Being female, age 18–49 years, non-Hispanic Black, having high school or lower education, being employed, and not having primary care medical home were associated with hesitancy.ConclusionsAmong the four IVH beliefs studied, being hesitant to receiving influenza vaccination followed by mistrust of healthcare providers were identified as the most influential hesitancy beliefs. Two in five adults in the United States were hesitant to receive an influenza vaccination, and hesitancy was negatively associated with vaccination. This information may assist with targeted interventions, personalized to the individual, to reduce hesitancy and thus improve influenza vaccination acceptance.     

The effects of parent’s health literacy and health beliefs on vaccine hesitancy

Parental vaccine hesitancy is a key factor influencing children’s vaccination against infectious diseases such as the COVID-19. The current study aims to investigate how parent’s health literacy and health belief affect parental hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccination, and navigate effective measures to help parents make vaccination decision for children. A mixed-mode web survey was conducted among parents of children aged 3–11 years. Parental vaccine hesitancy, health literacy, and health beliefs were assessed. Parallel mediation model examined whether the association between parent's health literacy and vaccine hesitancy was mediated by health beliefs. In total, 11.3% of the 346 participants reported vaccine hesitancy. Hesitant parents were more likely to be he mother (Father: 4.5%; Mother: 12.9%) and with children having allergic issues (Allergic: 18.3%; Non-allergic: 9.8%). Meanwhile, parents with lower health literacy were more likely to show hesitancy towards vaccinating their children (β = −6.87, 95% CI = [−10.50, −3.11]). This relationship was partially mediated by more perceived barriers in vaccination (β = −2.53, 95%CI = [−4.09, −1.02]), but not other health beliefs. In other words, parents with better health literacy may perceive fewer barriers in making vaccination decision for their children, thus being less hesitant. Accordingly, healthcare professionals and policy makers could design education service to promote parents’ health literacy, and remove the perceived barriers as well as increase their confidence in following the COVID-19 vaccine guidance for children.     

Motivational interviewing and vaccine acceptance in children: The MOTIVE study

Background and ObjectiveVaccine coverage have been less than desired in young children in part due to parental vaccine hesitancy. Addressing health beliefs through patient-centered communication approaches such as motivational interviewing (MI) may improve vaccine confidence. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the difference in paediatric vaccination coverage rates based on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended schedule in children 0–6 years of age after an educational intervention for providers and integration of an MI-based communication tool, MOTIVE (MOtivational Interviewing Tool to Improve Vaccine AcceptancE).MethodsPaediatric and family practice providers in a federally qualified health center in the United States completed an educational intervention regarding vaccine hesitancy and use of the MOTIVE tool. Providers then implemented the MOTIVE tool to address common health beliefs using strong, presumptive vaccine recommendations and an MI framework during encounters with patients 0–6 years of age. Data were collected from 1-year pre-educational intervention (July 2018-June 2019, N = 2504) and post-intervention (July 2019-March 2020, N = 1954) to examine differences in vaccination coverage rates and documented vaccine refusals.ResultsUse of the MOTIVE tool was associated with a statistically significant increase in IIV vaccination coverage rate in children 6 months to 6 years of age (32.4% versus 43.9%, p < 0.01). A significantly increased Hib vaccination coverage rate was observed in children 0–18 months of age. Patients with commercial insurance also had significantly higher vaccination coverage rates for the DTaP, IPV, and VAR vaccines during the intervention period. Use of the MOTIVE tool was associated with a decrease in documented vaccine refusals per 100 patients in children 0–6 years of age (31.5 versus 17.6, p < 0.01).ConclusionUse of an MI-based communication tool may decrease vaccine refusals and improve childhood vaccination coverage rates, particularly for IIV.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934008, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03934008, deidentified individual participant data will not be made available.     

Children vaccination coverage surveys: Impact of multiple sources of information and multiple contact attempts

BackgroundMonitoring vaccination coverage is an essential component of vaccination program evaluation. In Québec (Canada), children vaccination coverage surveys are conducted every two years since 2006. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of supplementing data based on vaccination booklets with data from vaccine providers, on the final estimated vaccination coverage and to compare vaccination coverage between respondents to each survey contact attempt.MethodsData from six cross-sectional surveys were used, which included 3508 children aged 2 years. Parents were invited to transcribe the information available in their child’s vaccination booklet on the questionnaire received by mail. The survey included a maximum of 4 contact attempts to obtain a response. Data were completed among vaccine providers identified by parents. The main outcome was a complete vaccination status by 24 months of age.ResultsThe addition of data from vaccine providers to those present in vaccination booklets increased the proportion of children fully vaccinated from 5.5% to 23.7% depending on the survey year. The proportion of children fully vaccinated by 24 months of age estimated among respondents to contact 1 was only 2.1% higher than the estimates among all respondents.ConclusionsWithout validation among vaccine providers for children with missing doses according to vaccination booklets, results underestimated vaccination coverage in the target population. Conducting multiple contact attempts increased the response rate but had limited impact on the validity of estimates. It would be useful in future surveys to present the coverage obtain from respondents to each contact attempt.     

Using classification and regression tree analysis to explore parental influenza vaccine decisions

Background and objectivesInfluenza poses a public health threat for children and adults. The CDC recommends annual influenza vaccination for children <18 years, yet vaccine uptake remains low for children (57.9%) and adults (37.1%). Given that parental decision-making is key in childhood vaccine uptake, there is a critical need to understand vaccine hesitancy among parents who decide not to vaccinate their children. This study aims to explore predictors of children’s influenza vaccine status given parental vaccination status and examine the factors that contribute to concordance or discordance between parental and children’s vaccine uptake.MethodsClassification and regression tree (CART) analyses were used to identify drivers of parental decisions to vaccinate their children against influenza. Hierarchy and interactions of these variables in predicting children’s vaccination status were explored.ResultsFrom a nationally representative sample of non-Hispanic Black and White parents who completed an online survey (n = 328), the main factors influencing parents’ decisions to vaccinate their children were vaccine behavior following physician recommendation, knowledge of influenza recommendations for children, influenza vaccine confidence and disease risk. Among unvaccinated parents, the greatest concordance was observed among parents who usually do not get vaccinated following physician recommendation and had lower knowledge of recommendations for influenza vaccination for children. The greatest discordance was observed among unvaccinated parents who had lower hesitancy about recommended vaccines.ConclusionsUnderstanding drivers of parental decisions to vaccinate themselves and their children can provide insights on health communication and provider approaches to increase influenza vaccine coverage and prevent influenza related mortality.     

Common issues and improvement solution of vaccine hesitancy in children with underlying neurological conditions: Experience from one National Children’s Medical Center in China

BackgroundParents and healthcare providers usually defer or avoid immunization for children with neurological conditions. This study was conducted to investigate the common issues of immunization among these special children and the impact of specialists’ recommendation on improving immunization practice.MethodWe included 2,221 children with underlying neurological conditions seeking vaccination consultation at the first Immunization Advisory Clinic in China during 2017–2019. The primary neurological conditions and immunization status were analyzed. All parents were informed to self-report the adverse events following catch-up immunization. For specially concerned children with hereditary disorders, immune-related encephalopathy and epilepsy, we conducted the active follow-up to monitor the compliance with recommendation and the adverse events.ResultAll counselling children were assessed as not having any contraindication of immunization. A total of 2,019 (90.9%) children with underlying neurological conditions had delayed immunization and 99 (4.5%) had non-immunization. The coverage rate of age-appropriate vaccines was 56.1%. The most concerned vaccines were diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis combined vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus combined vaccine, meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine and Japanese encephalitis vaccine. Resuming immunization was recommended for the 2,048 (92.2%) children. Most of counselling children complied with the specialists’ recommendation. Neither progress nor flaring of the neurological medical conditions was reported from parents.ConclusionVaccine hesitancy was a common issue for Chinese children with all kinds of neurological conditions. Specialized consultation on immunization is helpful to build vaccine confidence for the special children. Immunization for children with underlying neurological conditions is generally safe.     

COVID-19 vaccine literacy and vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women and mothers of young children in Japan

BackgroundDelays in the spread of vaccination have been recognized as an urgent public health issue in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine literacy (VL) is a critical determinant of vaccine uptake; however, little is known about VL among pregnant women and mothers of young children.MethodsWe analyzed data from a nationwide, cross-sectional internet survey in Japan on VL and vaccine hesitancy, conducted with 1,639 pregnant women and 5,688 mothers of young children who had given birth after July 2019, between July 24 and August 30, 2021.ResultsVaccine hesitancy was observed in 51.1 % of pregnant women and 31.9 % of mothers of young children. The risk of vaccine hesitancy was significantly higher among pregnant women with lower interactive/critical skills (risk ratio [RR] 2.10, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.59, 2.78, p < 0.001), although functional skills did not significantly correlate with vaccine hesitancy. For mothers of young children, we found a significantly higher risk of vaccine hesitancy among those with low VL functional skills (RR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.19, 1.61), p < 0.001) and low interactive/critical skills (RR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.10, 1.50, p = 0.001).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that aiding individuals to correctly evaluate vaccine-related information is critical for improving vaccine acceptance rates among both pregnant women and mothers of young children. Meanwhile, improving the comprehensibility of communication toolkits may be important for women with children but have a limited effect among pregnant women.     

Effects of measles-containing vaccination in children with severe underlying neurologic disease

BackgroundMeasles outbreaks pose significant risk for those unvaccinated.Patients and methodsMeasles-containing vaccine was offered to unvaccinated children with severe neurologic diseases during a measles outbreak. Vaccination adverse events were reported by parents 30 days following vaccination. Long term effects were evaluated 12 months post vaccination.ResultsTwenty-seven children were vaccinated (36 doses given). Half of parents (51.8%) reported no adverse events following immunization. Adverse events included afebrile seizures (6/36), fever alone (5/36) and febrile seizures (5/36). Two children required hospitalization. Quadrivalent measles-containing vaccine combined with varicella was associated with febrile seizures (p = 0.04). No child needed adjustment of the anti-epileptic treatment or exhibited developmental regression.ConclusionIn a series of children with prior severe neurologic disease, the safety-tolerability profile of vaccines containing a measles vaccine component suggests that vaccination is justified. Main side effect was seizure aggravation in children with known epileptic disease.     

Development and validation of a COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale for adults in the United States

COVID-19 vaccines have been rapidly developed. However, widespread uptake remains a hurdle to a successful pandemic response. A simple, user-friendly survey to measure vaccine hesitancy may facilitate development of interventions aimed at maximizing vaccination. We developed a novel 10-item instrument designed to measure COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in adults in the United States. We recruited 232 participants through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing platform. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) and temporal stability (r = 0.87; p < 0.001) of our survey was strong. Lower hesitancy (high scores) was associated with higher trust in physicians (r = 0.58; p < 0.001), and higher hesitancy (low scores) was reported with higher belief in conspiracies (r = -0.68; p < 0.001). The correlation between low hesitancy and reported intent to receive (or history of receiving) at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was moderate-strong (r = 0.68; p < 0.001).     

A behavior change model to address caregiver hesitancy around COVID-19 vaccination in pediatrics

IntroductionMany families express hesitancy around immunizing their children against COVID-19. We sought to better understand the perspectives of vaccine hesitant caregivers, and develop targeted recommendations for health care workers and policymakers to engage in more effective vaccine discussions.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 23 caregivers recruited from a pediatric infectious diseases clinic, including a subset of patients referred to discuss vaccine hesitancy. Thematic analysis of the interviews identified themes that were mapped using behavior change models to identify perceived barriers and facilitators towards COVID-19 immunization.ResultsBarriers and facilitators were mapped to the WHO (World Health Organization) 3C’s (confidence, complacency, convenience) model of vaccine hesitancy as well as the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation) behavior change model. Barriers included mistrust in authorities, misperception of the risk of COVID-19 in children, and perceived health contraindications and negative previous vaccine experiences. Facilitators included positive relationships with healthcare workers, the promise of a “return to normal”, and societal pressures to immunize.ConclusionsEfforts to increase vaccine uptake in the pediatric population must target specific barriers and facilitators to immunization expressed by caregivers. To address these concerns, we suggest: 1. Educating hesitant caregivers by highlighting the long-term pandemic effects on children and the threat of COVID-19 to children’s health, 2. Building on the trust caregivers have in healthcare workers by involving frontline workers in public health policy, and 3. Harnessing the power of peer pressure by mobilization of societal pressures and establishing COVID-19 vaccination as the norm in children.     

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October 2021: A multi-site prospective study

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.MethodsIn June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated.ResultsIn June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel “very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive’ was derived from motivation to protect one’s own or others’ health and resume usual activities; being ‘less receptive’ was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention.ConclusionThis study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.     

Effect of provider recommendation style on the length of adolescent vaccine discussions

ObjectiveTo determine whether providers’ vaccine recommendation style affects length of the adolescent vaccine discussions.MethodsWe analyzed vaccine discussions using audio-recordings of clinical encounters where adolescents were eligible for HPV vaccines ± meningococcal vaccines. We measured length of vaccine discussions, the provider’s use of an “indicated” (vaccination due at visit) or “elective” (vaccination is optional) recommendation style, and vaccine receipt. Parent and child demographics, parental vaccination intentions, and parental satisfaction with vaccine discussion were collected from pre- and post-visit surveys. We used linear and logit regressions with random effects to estimate recommendation style’s association with discussion length and with vaccine receipt, respectively.ResultsWe analyzed 106 vaccine discussions (82 HPV; 24 meningococcal) across 82 clinical encounters and 43 providers. Vaccine discussions were longer when providers presented vaccination as elective versus indicated (140 vs. 74 s; p-value < 0.001). Controlling for vaccine type, parental vaccination intent, and patient characteristics, an elective style was associated with 41 seconds longer vaccine discussion (p-value < 0.05). Providers used the indicated style more frequently with the meningococcal vaccine than with the HPV vaccine (96% vs. 72%; p-value < 0.05). Parents’ odds of vaccinating were 9.3 times higher following an indicated versus an elective presentation (p-value < 0.05). Vaccine discussion length and presentation style were not associated with parental satisfaction.ConclusionsOur results suggest that using an indicated recommendation improves vaccine discussions’ efficiency and effectiveness, but this style is used more often with meningococcal than HPV vaccines. Increasing providers’ use of indicated styles for HPV vaccines has the potential to increase vaccination rates and save time during medical visits.     

Addressing logistical barriers to childhood vaccination using an automated reminder system and online resource intervention: A randomized controlled trial

BackgroundAs the rates of vaccination decline in children with logistical barriers to vaccination, new strategies to increase vaccination are needed. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of the Vaccines For Babies (VFB) intervention, an automated reminder system with online resources to address logistical barriers to vaccination in caregivers of children enrolled in an integrated healthcare system. Effectiveness was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with parents of children less than two years old to identify logistical barriers to vaccination that were used to develop the VFB intervention. VFB included automated reminders to schedule the 6- and 12-month vaccine visit linking caregivers to resources to address logistic barriers, sent to the preferred mode of outreach (text, email, and/or phone). Parents of children between 3 and 10 months of age with indicators of logistical barriers to vaccination were randomized to receive VFB or usual well child care (UC). The primary outcome was percentage of days undervaccinated at 2 years of life. A difference in differences analysis was conducted.ResultsQualitative interviews with 6 parents of children less than 2 years of age identified transportation, scheduling challenges, and knowledge of vaccine timing as logistical barriers to vaccination. We enrolled 250 participants in the trial, 45% were loss to follow-up. There were no significant differences in vaccination uptake between those enrolled in UC or the VFB intervention (0.51%, p = 0.86). In Medicaid enrolled participants, there was a modest decrease in percentage of days undervaccinated in the VFB intervention compared to UC (6.3%, p = 0.07).ConclusionAutomated Reminders and with links to heath system resources was not shown to increase infant vaccination uptake demonstrating additional resources are needed to address the needs of caregivers experiencing logistical barriers to vaccination.     

Economic impact of vaccine safety incident in Ukraine: The economic case for safety system investment

BackgroundVaccine confidence and coverage decreased following a death temporally but not causally related to measles vaccination in Ukraine in 2008. Large measles outbreaks including international exportations followed. Herein we characterize this experience including associated costs.MethodsMixed-methods were used to characterize this vaccine safety incident and quantify health and economic costs. Qualitative interviews illuminate the incident, social climate, and corruption that influenced vaccine confidence in Ukraine. A literature review explored attitudes toward vaccines in the USSR and post-independence Ukraine. Infectious disease incidence was examined before and after the vaccine safety incident. An economic analysis estimated associated healthcare costs, including prevention and outbreak control measures, additional vaccination activities due to failure of the 2008 campaign, treatment costs for new cases domestically and foreign exportation, and productivity loss from treatment time and mortality for new cases.FindingsVaccine hesitancy and distrust in government and public health programs due to corruption existed in Ukraine before the vaccine safety incident. The mishandling of the 2008 incident catalyzed the decline of vaccine confidence and prompted poor procurement decisions, leading to a drop in infant vaccination coverage, increased domestic measles cases, and exportation of measles. The estimated cost of this incident was approximately $140 million from 2008 to 2018.InterpretationAbsent a rapid and credible vaccine safety response, a coincidental death following immunization resulted in major outbreaks of measles with substantial economic costs. Adequate investments in a post-licensure safety system may help avoid similar future incidents.     

Vaccine timeliness and prevalence of undervaccination patterns in children ages 0–19 months,U.S., National Immunization Survey-Child 2017

ObjectivesTypically, early childhood vaccination coverage in the U.S. is measured as the proportion of children by age 24 months who completed recommended vaccine series. However, these measures do not reflect whether vaccine doses were received at the ages recommended by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or whether children received vaccines concomitantly, per the ACIP recommended schedule. This study’s objective was to quantify vaccine timeliness and prevalence of specific patterns of undervaccination in U.S. children ages 0–19 months.MethodsUsing 2017 National Immunization Survey-Child data, we calculated days undervaccinated for the combined 7-vaccine series and distinguished undervaccination patterns indicative of parental vaccine hesitancy, such as spreading out vaccines across visits (“shot-limiting”) or starting some but not all recommended vaccine series (“selective vaccination”), from other non-hesitancy patterns, such as missing final vaccine doses or receiving all doses, with some or all late. We measured associations between demographic, socioeconomic and other characteristics with undervaccination patterns using multivariable log-linked binomial regression. Analyses accounted for the complex survey design.ResultsAmong n = 15,333 U.S. children, only 41.2% received all recommended vaccine doses on-time by age 19 months. Approximately 20.9% of children had an undervaccination pattern suggestive of parental vaccine hesitancy, and 36.2% had other undervaccination non-hesitancy patterns. Uninsured children and those with lower levels of maternal education were more likely to exhibit undervaccination patterns suggestive of parental hesitancy. Lower levels of maternal education were also associated with other non-hesitancy undervaccination patterns.ConclusionsMore than half of children in the U.S. are undervaccinated at some point by 19 months of age. Ongoing assessment of vaccine timeliness and immunization schedule adherence could facilitate timely and targeted public health interventions in populations with high levels of undervaccination.     

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in people affected by diabetes and strategies to increase vaccine compliance: A systematic narrative review and meta-analysis

IntroductionPeople affected by diabetes are at higher risk for complications from certain vaccine-preventable diseases. Suboptimal vaccination coverages are reported in this population sub-group. The purpose of this study is to estimate the proportion of diabetic patients who express hesitation to the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide.MethodsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases from 2020 to 2022. The following terms were used for the search strategy: (adherence OR hesitancy OR compliance OR attitude) AND (covid* OR SARS*) AND (vaccin* OR immun*) AND (diabet*).ResultsThe vaccine hesitation rate among persons with diabetes was 27.8 % (95 %CI = 15.6–41.9 %). In the comparison of vaccine hesitancy between sexes and educational status, the RRs were 0.90 (95 %CI = 0.71–1.15) and 0.88 (95 %CI = 0.76–1.02), respectively. The main reasons of unwillingness were lack of information, opinion that the vaccine was unsafe or not efficient, and fear of adverse events.ConclusionsIn order to achieve a high vaccination coverage, multifactorial approach is needed, which requires major social, scientific and health efforts. The success of the vaccination campaign in this population depends on the capillarity and consistency of the interventions implemented.     

Latent class analysis of medical mistrust and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States just prior to FDA emergency use authorization

Using a nationally representative household sample, we sought to better understand types of medical mistrust as a driver of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We used survey responses to conduct a latent class analysis to classify respondents into categories and explained this classification as a function of sociodemographic and attitudinal variables using multinomial logistic regression models. We then estimated the probability of respondents agreeing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine conditional on their medical mistrust category. We extracted a five-class solution to represent trust. The high trust group (53.0 %) is characterized by people who trust both their doctors and medical research. The trust in own doctor group (19.0 %) trust their own doctors but is ambiguous when it comes to trusting medical research. The high distrust group (6.3 %) neither trust their own doctor nor medical research. The undecided group (15.2 %) is characterized by people who agree on some dimensions and disagree on others. The no opinion group (6.2 %) did not agree nor disagree with any of the dimensions. Relative to the high trust group, those who trust their own doctors are almost 20 percentage points less likely to plan to get vaccinated (average marginal effect (AME) = 0.21, p <.001), and those who have high distrust are 24 percentage points less likely (AME = -0.24, p <.001) to report planning to get the vaccine. Results indicate that beyond sociodemographic characteristics and political attitudes, people’s trust archetypes on parts of the medical field significantly predict their probability of wanting to get vaccinated. Our findings suggest that efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy should focus on building capacity of trusted providers to speak with their patients and parents of their patients, to recommend COVID-19 vaccination and build a trusting relationship; and increase trust and confidence in medical research.     

Prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among older adults in Europe

AimDifferences in levels of vaccine uptake have emerged across Europe, and this may partly be explained by religious beliefs. Our aim is to study the association between religiosity, measured by prayer frequency, and vaccine hesitancy, and to examine how this association varies across European countries and regions.MethodsThis study was based on 42,583 adults aged 50 years and above from 27 European countries in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), waves 1–8, and the 2nd SHARE COVID-19 Survey. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations.ResultsParticipants were more likely to be vaccine-hesitant when praying ‘weekly or less’ (odds ratio (OR) 1.32 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.23–1.42) or daily (OR 1.78 95 % CI 1.65–1.92). Praying ‘weekly or less’ was associated with increased vaccine hesitancy in Southern Europe (OR 1.48 95 % CI 1.17–1.87) and Central and Eastern (OR 1.35 95 % CI 1.24–1.47) Europe, while daily praying was associated with vaccine hesitancy in Western (OR 1.77 95 % CI 1.51–2.08), Southern (OR 1.30 95 % CI 1.03–1.64), Central and Eastern (OR 1.89 95 % CI 1.73–2.06) and Northern (OR 2.75 95 % CI 1.54–4.89) Europe.ConclusionsThese findings provide support for an association between daily prayer frequency and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with a consistent pattern across European regions.