Factors associated with caregivers’ hesitancy to vaccinate children against influenza: A cross-sectional survey in China

BackgroundSeasonal influenza can cause serious harm to children under five years of age, while caregivers are still hesitant to vaccinate children against influenza. This study aimed to investigate caregivers’ hesitancy regarding influenza vaccination and assess the associated factors.MethodsFrom August to October 2019, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in ten provinces in China. The questionnaire collected information about sociodemographic characteristics and caregivers’ knowledge, perceptions and attitudes toward influenza vaccination. Caregivers were identified as not hesitating, hesitating or refusing to vaccinate children. Multinomial logistic regression was adopted to determine factors related to vaccine hesitancy based on the 3C model with three dimensions namely complacency, convenience and confidence.ResultsA total of 6668 valid questionnaires were collected, among which 38.57% did not hesitate to vaccinate children against influenza, 56.03% were hesitant, and 5.40% refused. Multinomial logistic regression showed that caregivers perceiving high importance (AOR = 0.68 for hesitancy; 0.15 for refusal), safety (AOR = 0.42; 0.46) or efficacy (AOR = 0.73; 0.65) of influenza vaccination, knowing children as a priority group (AOR = 0.80; 0.48), and trusting vaccination advice from medical staff (AOR = 0.65; 0.51) had lower odds of hesitancy or refusal. Those considering price as a hindering factor had higher odds of hesitancy (AOR = 1.66) or refusal (AOR = 1.47), and those viewing time or distance as a hindering factor (AOR = 1.45) or having heard of vaccine-related negative information (AOR = 1.78) had higher odds of hesitancy. Sociodemographic characteristics were associated with vaccine hesitancy or refusal, and the associations varied for hesitators and refusers.ConclusionA large proportion of caregivers in China reported their hesitancy for influenza vaccination, and the associated factors of such hesitancy were complicated. Health professionals are recommended to spread relevant scientific knowledge and give vaccine-related suggestions to caregivers in doctor visits to promote caregivers’ trust in influenza vaccination and therefore expand childhood vaccine coverage.     

The determinants of vaccine hesitancy in China: A cross-sectional study following the Changchun Changsheng vaccine incident

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy is cited as one of the top threats to global health. The Changchun Changsheng Biotechnology Company was found to have violated good manufacturing practices in July 2018, leading to widespread distribution of sub-potent vaccines in China. We estimated the prevalence and determinants of vaccine hesitancy following the Changchun Changsheng vaccine incident (CCVI).MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey in China in January 2019, and 2,124 caregivers of children < 6 years old completed self-administered questionnaires. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the determinants of vaccine hesitancy; the potential determinants included demographics, socioeconomic status, vaccine confidence, and knowledge of the CCVI. Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported.ResultsAround 89% of caregivers had heard of the CCVI. Although 83% and 88% of caregivers agreed that vaccines are safe and effective, respectively, 60% expressed some hesitancy about vaccination. Of those hesitant, 26% vaccinated their children at times with doubts, 31% delayed vaccination and 3% refused specific vaccines. Multinomial regression analysis showed that confidence in vaccine safety was associated with a reduced odds of doubts on vaccination (AOR = 0.64; 95%CI = 0.44–0.94), whereas caregivers who had heard of the CCVI had a significantly higher odds of doubts on vaccination (AOR = 1.61; 95%CI = 1.05–2.45). Confidence in the vaccine delivery system and government were associated with a lower odds of vaccine hesitancy. Caregivers with higher education and Buddhism or other religions were significantly more hesitant to vaccinate their children.ConclusionVaccine hesitancy was prevalent following the CCVI. Over half the caregivers either accepted childhood vaccination with doubts or delayed vaccines; only a small number were active refusers. Our findings highlight the importance of addressing vaccine hesitancy, especially following vaccine incidents. Tailored communications are needed to reduce vaccine hesitancy, especially among the highly educated and Buddhist caregivers.     

The continuum of influenza vaccine hesitancy among nursing professionals in Hong Kong

IntroductionInfluenza vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers poses challenges to the achievement of herd immunity and causes infection risks to vulnerable patients. This study aimed to quantify the extent of influenza vaccine hesitancy among nurses in Hong Kong, to delineate its pattern, and to explore its socio-demographic, professional and personal correlates.MethodNurses in Hong Kong were recruited in a cross-sectional study involving the administration of an online questionnaire survey after the 2017/18 winter influenza season. Respondents’ influenza vaccination behaviours, attitudes and psychological antecedents were assessed, followed by their delineation into subgroups along the hesitancy continuum through a combination of multiple correspondence analysis and K-means cluster analysis. Socio-demographic, professional and personal correlations of subgrouping were investigated using generalised ordered logistic regression.ResultsThe overall vaccination coverage of nurses for the 2017/18 influenza season was 44%. Five clusters were differentiated by the level of influenza vaccine hesitancy: “Very high hesitancy-to-complete refusal” (n = 56; 7%) characterised by outright refusal of vaccination; “High hesitancy” (n = 171; 23%) distinguished by tendency of skipping vaccination and scepticism about safety of vaccine; “Moderate hesitancy” (n = 273; 36%) with uncertainties towards vaccination, mistrust of the government’s vaccine recommendations and priority concern on affordability of vaccine; “Low hesitancy” (n = 95; 13%) with cautious acceptance towards vaccination and “No-to-minimal hesitancy” (n = 158; 21%) with strong vaccine confidence and compliance greatly linked to convenience of vaccine access. Nurses having completed at least 3 years’ pre-registration professional training, having most family members vaccinated against influenza, and with influenza vaccination history during studentship were less vaccine hesitant.ConclusionWith more than half of the nurses in Hong Kong having moderate or higher level of influenza vaccine hesitancy, interventions customised to the needs of nurses as reflected from the characteristics of clusters along the vaccine hesitancy continuum could form an important strategy for improving vaccination uptake.     

Low COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Brazil

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world, and the vaccine has emerged as a source of hope for return to normal life. Still, various countries have reported high vaccine hesitancy rates. It is important to know the vaccine hesitancy profile in Brazil to help design adequate communication strategies.MethodsA voluntary, anonymous online survey was conducted from January 22 to 29, 2021, including resident Brazilian adults to assess factors related to vaccine hesitancy. Sociodemographic and epidemiological data were analyzed. A bivariate analysis was conducted with the independent variables, with vaccine hesitancy as the outcome variable, and a multivariate logistic model was used to calculated adjusted odds ratios.ResultsThe sample included 173,178 respondents, and vaccine hesitancy was found in 10.5%. The principal factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were the following: assigning importance to the vaccinés efficacy (AOR = 16.39), fear of adverse reactions (AOR = 11.23), and assigning importance to the vaccinés country of origin (AOR = 3.72). Other risk factors were the following: male gender (AOR = 1.62), having children (AOR = 1.29), 9 years of schooling or less (AOR = 1.31), living in the Central-West region (AOR = 1.19), age ≥ 40 years (AOR = 1.17), and monthly income < U$788.68 (AOR = 1.13). The two vaccines available in Brazil, Covishield and CoronaVac, showed similar confidence, 80.13% and 76.36%, respectively, despite the higher rejection of the latter vaccinés Chinese origin.InterpretationThis online survey confirms the low vaccine hesitancy rate among Brazilians and allowed the identification of a profile that can assist the elaboration of communication strategies to increase vaccine adherence.FundingNational Institute of Women, Children and Adolescents Health Fernandes Figueira, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.     

Relative effectiveness of high dose versus standard dose influenza vaccines in older adult outpatients over four seasons, 2015–16 to 2018–19

BackgroundNew influenza vaccine formulations are designed to improve vaccine effectiveness and protect those most vulnerable to infection. High dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3), licensed for ages ≥65 years, produces greater antibody responses and efficacy in clinical trials, but post-licensure vaccine effectiveness (VE) compared to standard dose (SD-IIV3/4) vaccine remains an open question.MethodsUsing a test-negative, case control design and propensity analyses to adjust for confounding, US Influenza VE Network data from the 2015–2016 through 2018–2019 seasons were analyzed to determine relative VE (rVE) between HD-IIV3 and SD-IIV3/4 among outpatients ≥65 years old presenting with acute respiratory illness. Influenza vaccination status was derived from electronic medical records and immunization registries.ResultsAmong 3861 enrollees, 2993 (78%) were vaccinated; 1573 (53%) received HD-IIV3 and 1420 (47%) received SD-IIV3/4. HD-IIV3 recipients differed from SD-IIV3/4 recipients by race, previous vaccination, number of outpatient visits in the previous year and timing of vaccination, and were balanced in the propensity model except the timing of vaccination. Compared with no vaccination, significant protection against any influenza A was observed from both HD-IIV3 (VE = 29%; 95%CI = 10%, 44%) and SD-IIV3/4 (VE = 24%; 95%CI = 5%, 39%); rVE = 18% (95%CI = 0%, 33%, SD as referent). When stratified by virus type, against A/H1N1, HD-IIV3 VE was 30% (95%CI = −7%, 54%), SD-IIV3/4 VE was 40% (95%CI = 10%, 61%), and rVE = −32%; (95%CI = −94%, 11%); Against A/H3N2, HD-IIV3 VE was 31% (95%CI = 9%, 47%), SD-IIV3/4 VE was 19% (95%CI = −5%, 37%), and rVE = 27%; (95% CI = 9%, 42%).ConclusionsAmong adults ≥65 years of age, recipients of standard and high dose influenza vaccines differed significantly in their characteristics. After adjusting for these differences, high dose vaccine offered more protection against A/H3N2 and borderline significant protection against all influenza A requiring outpatient care during the 2015–2018 influenza seasons.     

Vaccination willingness,vaccine hesitancy,and estimated coverage at the first round of COVID-19 vaccination in China: A national cross-sectional study

BackgroundVaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become an important public health solution. To date, there has been a lack of data on COVID-19 vaccination willingness, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccination coverage in China since the vaccine has become available.MethodsWe designed and implemented a cross-sectional, population-based online survey to evaluate the willingness, hesitancy, and coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine among the Chinese population. 8742 valid samples were recruited and classified as the vaccine-priority group (n = 3902; 44.6%) and the non-priority group (n = 4840; 55.4%).ResultsThe proportion of people’s trust in the vaccine, delivery system, and government were 69.0%, 78.0% and 81.3%, respectively. 67.1% of the participants were reportedly willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccination, while 9.0% refused it. 834 (35.5%) reported vaccine hesitancy, including acceptors with doubts (48.8%), refusers (39.4%), and delayers (11.8%). The current coverage was 34.4%, far from reaching the requirements of herd immunity. The predicted rate of COVID-19 vaccination was 64.9%, 68.9% and 81.1% based on the rates of vaccine hesitancy, willingness, and refusal, respectively.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 vaccine rate is far from reaching the requirements of herd immunity, which will require more flexible and comprehensive efforts to improve the population’s confidence and willingness to vaccinate. It should be highlighted that vaccination alone is insufficient to stop the pandemic; further efforts are needed not only to increase vaccination coverage but also to maintain non-specific prevention strategies.     

Seasonal Influenza Vaccination among Homebound Elderly Receiving Home-Based Primary Care in New York City

Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥50 years to reduce influenza related morbidity and mortality, but vaccination coverage among community-dwelling elderly remains low. Homebound elderly receiving home-based primary care (HBPC) have fewer barriers to vaccination than other community-dwelling elderly. The Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors (MSVD) program provides HBPC to homebound elderly in New York City. This study assessed seasonal influenza vaccination coverage within an urban HBPC program and identified factors associated with vaccine refusal. A cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2008–2009 influenza season was completed and influenza vaccination coverage was assessed. The association between social, demographic and health-related characteristics and vaccine refusal was evaluated using bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Of 689 people aged >65 eligible for influenza vaccination, 578 (84%) accepted and 111 (16%) refused vaccination. In multivariable analysis, vaccine refusal was positively associated with female gender (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02, 3.35), black race (AOR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.28, 3.25), and living alone (AOR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.10, 2.67), and negatively associated with dementia (AOR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.37, 0.91). Seasonal influenza vaccine coverage in the MSVD program was high compared to nursing home and community-dwelling elderly. Offering patients vaccination at home without additional expense will likely improve vaccine coverage among urban homebound elderly. Understanding why vaccine refusal rates are higher among females, black patients, and those living alone should guide interventions to increase vaccine acceptance among this population.     

Veteran influenza vaccination acceptance rates after completion of the COVID-19 vaccination series among historical influenza vaccine refusers

BackgroundVaccine hesitancy remains an obstacle in disease prevention. The recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this issue and may influence acceptance of other recommended immunizations. The objective of this study was to determine the association between receiving the COVID-19 vaccination and the subsequent acceptance of the influenza vaccination in a Veteran population that historically declined influenza vaccination.MethodsInfluenza vaccination acceptance rates for the 2021–2022 influenza season were compared in patients who historically declined the influenza vaccine and either received or declined COVID-19 vaccinations. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze factors associated with receiving influenza vaccination among vaccine hesitant individuals.ResultsA higher proportion of patients who had received the COVID-19 vaccination(s) subsequently accepted the influenza vaccination compared to the control group (37% vs. 11%, OR = 5.03; CI 3.15–8.26; p = 0.0001).ConclusionAmong previous influenza vaccine decliners, those who received COVID-19 vaccination had significantly higher odds of receiving subsequent influenza vaccination.     

Association of death or illness from COVID-19 among family and friends on vaccine uptake within four months of the Emergency Use Authorization. Findings from a national survey in the United States

ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between knowing that a friend or family member became ill with, or died from, COVID-19 and receiving a vaccine dose within four months of the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.MethodsA national sample of 1,517 respondents were surveyed from April 7 to April 12, 2021, 1,193 of whom were eligible for the vaccine when the data were collected.ResultsRespondents who knew someone who became ill with COVID-19 (AOR = 2.32, 95 % CI 1.74–3.09) or knew someone who died (AOR = 2.29, 95 % CI 1.32–3.99) from COVID-19 were more likely to receive at least a single COVID-19 vaccine dose.ConclusionEncouraging people to share their COVID-19 illness and bereavement experiences with their local network such as friends, families, social-networks and via social media might help increase vaccine uptake.     

Trusted information sources in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic predict vaccination uptake over one year later

IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccine uptake has been a major barrier to stopping the pandemic in many countries with vaccine access. This longitudinal study examined the capability to predict vaccine uptake from data collected early in the pandemic before vaccines were available.Methods493 US respondents completed online surveys both at baseline (March 2020) and wave 6 (June 2021), while 390 respondents completed baseline and wave 7 (November 2021) surveys. The baseline survey assessed trust in sources of COVID-19 information, social norms, perceived risk of COVID-19, skepticism about the pandemic, prevention behaviors, and conspiracy beliefs. Multivariable logistic models examined factors associated with the receipt of at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose at the two follow-ups.ResultsIn the adjusted model of vaccination uptake at wave 6, older age (aOR = 1.02, 95 %CI = 1.00–1.04) and greater income (aOR = 1.69, 95 %CI = 1.04–2.73) was associated with positive vaccination status. High trust in state health departments and mainstream news outlets at baseline were positively associated with vaccination at wave 6, while high trust in the Whitehouse (aOR = 0.42, 95 %CI = 0.24–0.74) and belief that China purposely spread the virus (aOR = 0.66, 95 %CI = 0.46–0.96) at baseline reduced the odds of vaccination. In the adjusted model of vaccination uptake at wave 7, increased age was associated with positive vaccination status, and Black race (compared to white) was associated with negative vaccination status. High trust in the CDC and mainstream news outlets at baseline were both associated with being vaccinated at wave 7, while high trust in the Whitehouse (aOR = 0.24, 95 %CI = 0.11–0.51) and belief that the virus was spread purposefully by China (aOR = 0.60, 95 %CI = 0.39–0.93) were negatively associated with vaccination.ConclusionsThese findings indicated that vaccine uptake could be predicted over a year earlier. Trust in specific sources of COVID-19 information were strong predictors, suggesting that future pandemic preparedness plans should include forums for news media, public health officials, and diverse political leaders to meet and develop coherent plans to communicate to the public early in a pandemic so that antivaccine attitudes do not flourish and become reinforced.     

Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults

IntroductionDecisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did.MethodsIn May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome.ResultsAmong participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23–2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88–2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49–2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36–0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45–2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15–1.90).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.     

Underserved population acceptance of combination influenza-COVID-19 booster vaccines

Recent data indicates increasing hesitancy towards both COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. We studied attitudes towards COVID-19 booster, influenza, and combination influenza-COVID-19 booster vaccines in a nationally representative sample of US adults between May and June 2021 (n = 12,887). We used pre-qualification quotes to ensure adequate sample sizes for minority populations. Overall vaccine acceptance was 45% for a COVID-19 booster alone, 58% for an influenza vaccine alone, and 50% for a combination vaccine. Logistic regression showed lower acceptance among female, Black/African American, Native American/American Indian, and rural respondents. Higher acceptance was found among those with college and post-graduate degrees. Despite these differences, our results suggest that a combination vaccine may provide a convenient method of dual vaccination that may increase COVID-19 vaccination coverage.     

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.     

Health Belief Model and parents' acceptance of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5–18 years Old: A national survey

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, several vaccines received approval for children aged 18 or younger. Parents’ decisions to accept vaccines play an important role in the success of vaccination campaigns. The Health Belief Model (HBM) may explain its association with vaccine acceptance. This study examined parents’ Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm vaccine acceptance for their children and its association with HBM.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in March 2022 using an online survey. Respondents were parents of children aged 5–18 in public and private schools. The multistage random sampling technique was used to choose schools and respondents. Multivariable analysis was conducted to examine the association between vaccine acceptance and HBM.ResultsThe response rate was 55 %. Of 1,056 respondents, 80.1 % were female, with a mean age of 41, and 95.8 % were not health professionals. Pfizer-BioNTech had a greater acceptance rate than Sinopharm (90 % v.s. 36 %). The Multivariable analysis shows that perceived benefits (aOR = 25.30, 95 %CI = 10.02–63.89 and aOR = 17.94, 95 %CI = 9.56–33.66 for Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm, respectively) and perceived barriers (aOR = 0.06, 95 %CI = 0.01–0.50 and aOR = 0.20, 95 %CI = 0.11–0.40 for Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm, respectively) were associated with vaccine acceptance for both vaccines. Education was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine acceptance (aOR = 0.96, 95 %CI 0.71–1.29).ConclusionsThe respondents were more confident in Pfizer-BioNTech than Sinopharm. Perceived barriers and perceived benefits were strongly associated with the respondents’ vaccine acceptance for both vaccines. During epidemics and pandemics, the government needs vaccines with high efficacy and safety for a higher chance of parents’ vaccine acceptance. Future research should examine vaccine costs as perceived barriers for a newly out-of-pocket developed vaccine.     

Measuring vaccine acceptance and knowledge within health professions education

BackgroundRecent rises in the incidence of vaccine-preventable illnesses and suboptimal vaccine acceptance are considered a consequence of accumulating misinformation. Evidence-based approaches to patient-provider communication are key to addressing vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess vaccination attitudes and foundational knowledge among healthcare professions students.MethodsA 72-item survey was developed to assess vaccine attitudes and knowledge about vaccination among health professions students. The survey incorporated 14 demographics questions, 41 attitude questions, and 17 knowledge questions. 16 of the attitude questions, derived from a set of core questions used to diagnose vaccine hesitancy from the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix, were analyzed together to derive a vaccine acceptance score.Results295 anonymous survey responses were collected between July 2019 and November 2020. Respondents represented students enrolled in medical, dental, pharmacy, optometry, and biomedical science health professions programs. Respondents scored 82.0% ± 0.8% (mean ± standard error of the mean) on questions that gauged vaccine acceptance. The mean vaccine acceptance score was 85.4% ± 1.0% for medical students and 88.0% ± 1.6% for biomedical science students. The mean knowledge score across all programs was 67.7% ± 1.1%. The greatest proficiency in knowledge scores was seen amongst medical students (79.0% ± 1.3%).ConclusionsAmongst the different health professions, students in the fields of medicine and biomedical sciences had the highest levels of vaccine acceptance attitudes and knowledge. The vaccine acceptance score can be utilized by health professions educators to guide vaccine education for future health professionals to better prepare them to address vaccine hesitancy and educate patients on vaccination.     

Evaluation of the reliability and validity of a vaccine hesitancy scale on knowledge,attitude, trust and vaccination environment (KATE-S) in Chinese parents

ObjectiveTo verify the reliability and validity of a vaccine hesitancy scale about knowledge, attitude, trust and vaccination environment (KATE-S) among the Chinese parents.MethodsA questionnaire survey was conducted by convenience sampling in China using the KATE-S to assess knowledge of vaccines, attitudes towards vaccines, trust in acquired information and vaccination environment and vaccination status of vaccine introduced in immunization program among children.ResultA total of 199 valid questionnaires were collected from the parents. Among those, 83 (41.7%) parents accepted all vaccines without hesitancy, 111 (55.8%) parents accepted all but had hesitancy intention, and 5 (2.5%) had hesitancy behaviour of refusing or delaying vaccination. The overall test–retest reliability, split-half reliability and Cronbach's coefficient values were 0.924, 0.885 and 0.823, respectively. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) of universal agreement was 0.867, and the average S-CVI was 0.978. Exploratory factor analysis extracted seven common factors from the scale, and the cumulative contribution rate was 56.8%. The correlation coefficients between the items and their dimensions ranged from 0.405 to 0.760, with a calibration success rate of 100% for convergent and discriminant validity. After adjusting for the basic characteristics, the knowledge level of hesitancy intention group and hesitancy behavior group were both lower than accept all group (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65–0.94; OR = 0.26, 95 %CI: 0.07–0.94).ConclusionThe KATE-S has good reliability and validity in Chinese parents and would be considered to expand the sample size and survey areas to obtain more representative results.     

Vaccination attitudes,beliefs and behaviours among primary health care workers in northern Croatia

Primary health care workers (HCWs) provide almost all vaccine services in Croatia, so they play an essential role in vaccine recommendations and uptake. The aim of this study was to determine the level of vaccine hesitancy among primary HCWs, to identify differences between nurses and physicians in attitudes, beliefs and behaviours towards vaccination, and to determine predictors of vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. We conducted a cross-sectional study from July to December in 2018 among physicians and nurses employed in the services of epidemiology, public health, school medicine, pediatrics and general practice/family medicine in Primorje-Gorski Kotar County, a primarily urban region with a population around 300 000 in the northern part of Croatia. The list of primary HCWs offices was obtained from the Croatian Health Insurance Fond website. We used a self-administered questionnaire on their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours relative to vaccination. Obtained response rate was 65.5% (324/495) of eligible primary HCWs; 64.1% (143/223) of physicians and 66.5% (181/272) of nurses. Seventeen percent of HCWs were identified as vaccine hesitant, and in univariate analysis, we observed an association between HCWs occupation and their own vaccination against flu (p = 0.001), measles (p = 0.016) and HPV (p = 0.025). Nurses and physicians differed (p < 0.001) in their general attitude, beliefs and behaviours towards vaccination, with a higher level of hesitancy among nurses. In multiple logistic regression, those more likely to be vaccine-hesitant were nurses (AOR = 5.73, 95%CI = 2.48–13.24), those who were uncertain or would never receive a vaccine against measles (AOR=11.13; 95%CI=5.37–23.10) and HPV (AOR=5.02; 95%CI=2.60–9.74), as well as those who had encountered a serious adverse event following immunization (AOR=7.55; 95%CI=3.13–19.18). As personal hesitancy may have a negative impact on vaccination education and recommendations, and therefore vaccine coverage, it is necessary to implement interventions to increase vaccination knowledge and confidence among primary health care workers, especially nurses.     

COVID-19 vaccine intentions in the United States,a social-ecological framework

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a major obstacle for pandemic mitigation. As vaccine hesitancy occurs along multiple dimensions, we used a social-ecological framework to guide the examination of COVID-19 vaccine intentions.MethodsUsing an online survey in the US conducted in July 2020, we examined intentions to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, once available. 592 respondents provided data, including measures of demographics, vaccine history, social norms, perceived risk, and trust in sources of COVID-19 information. Bivariate and multivariate multinomial models were used to compare respondents who intended to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to respondents who did not intend or were ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination.ResultsOnly 59.1% of the sample reported that they intended to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. In the multivariate multinomial model, those respondents who did not intend to be vaccinated, as compared to those who did, had significantly lower levels of trust in the CDC as a source of COVID-19 information (aOR = 0.29, CI = 0.17–0.50), reported lower social norms of COVID-19 preventive behaviors (aOR = 0.67, CI 0.51–0.88), scored higher on COVID-19 Skepticism (aOR = 1.44, CI = 1.28–1.61), identified as more politically conservative (aOR = 1.23, CI = 1.05–1.45), were less likely to have obtained a flu vaccine in the prior year (aOR = 0.21, CI = 0.11–0.39), were less likely to be female (aOR = 0.51, CI = 0.29–0.87), and were much more likely to be Black compared to White (aOR = 10.70, CI = 4.09–28.1). A highly similar pattern was observed among those who were ambivalent about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to those who intended to receive one.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest several avenues for COVID-19 vaccine promotion campaigns, including social network diffusion strategies and cross-partisan messaging, to promote vaccine trust. The racial and gender differences in vaccine intentions also suggest the need to tailor campaigns based on gender and race.