Changes in parents’ decisions pertaining to vaccination of their children after the Changchun Changsheng vaccine scandal in Guangzhou,China

A series of scandals involving the rabies vaccine and the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis combined vaccine (DTP) were reported in July 2018, in China. Our goal was to assess the effects of the vaccine scandal on parents’ attitudes and decisions regarding vaccination. A cross-sectional study was conducted by contacting kindergarteners’ parents through an online questionnaire from March 1 to 8, 2019. In total, 14,300 valid questionnaire responses were received, and 92.53% of respondents were aware of the recent vaccine scandal. Among parents who were aware of the vaccine scandal, 13.62% preferred that their children receive optional vaccines (optional vaccine group) or delay, stop or reject vaccinations (hesitate group) instead of receiving mandatory vaccines (mandatory vaccine group). Awareness of the vaccine scandal and self-reporting of vaccine-associated side effects in their children were more common among respondents in the optional vaccine and the hesitate groups (P < 0.001). Compared with the mandatory vaccine group, parents in the hesitate group were more likely to report having attempted to dissuade others from vaccinating their children (P < 0.001). Because the scandal changed parents’ decisions regarding vaccination of their children, efforts should be made to restore public confidence in vaccines and to boost immunization rates.     

Conditionality of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in European countries

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has offered a powerful preventive measure to help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nevertheless, long-standing public hesitation around vaccines heightened concerns that vaccine coverage would not achieve desired public health impacts, particularly in light of more contagious variants. This cross-sectional survey was conducted online just before the European vaccine rollout in December 2020 among 7000 respondents (aged 18–65) in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. The survey included open text boxes for fuller explanation of responses. Overall, 56.9% of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 19.0% would not, and 24.1% did not know or preferred not to say. By country, between 44% (France) and 66% (Italy) of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents expressed conditionality in open responses, voicing concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of authorities. We highlight lessons learned about the dynamism of vaccine conditionality and persistence of safety concerns.     

COVID-19 vaccination attitudes,values and intentions among United States adults prior to emergency use authorization

IntroductionSafe and effective vaccines against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide the best opportunity to control the pandemic. Having safe and efficacious vaccines available is only half the equation; people must also take them. We describe a study to identify COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, values and intentions immediately preceding authorization of COVID-19 vaccines in the US.MethodsA national panel survey was conducted to measure intent to receive COVID-19 vaccines as well as disease and vaccine attitudes, values and trust in local, state and federal public health authorities.ResultsGreater than 80% of respondents reported confidence they could adhere to COVID recommendations such as mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. The majority of respondents (70%) reported believing that current drugs were somewhat or very good at treating COVID-19 infection.Vaccine intent fell into three groups: Intenders (50%), Wait and Learn (40%), and Unlikelys (10%). Intent to get vaccinated was substantially lower among African American (32%), and higher among men (56%), those over 60 years of age (61%), those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (63%), and Democrats (63%). The Wait and Learn group, compared to the Intenders, were less likely to report being diagnosed with a high risk condition for COVID-19, receiving an influenza vaccine in the past 12 months, discussing COVID-19 vaccine with their healthcare provider, perceiving COVID-19 as severe, considering a COVID-19 vaccine important to stop the spread of infection, and wering a mask usually or almost always.ConclusionOnly half of US adults intend to accept COVID-19 vaccines; most others (40%) are uncertain. Levels of immunity associated with community protection will not be achieved without reaching those who are currently uncertain. Characterizing COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and intentions and ascertaining values and trust in local, state, and federal public health authorities that impact vaccine decision-making are essential.     

Ebola vaccine? Family first! Evidence from using a brief measure on Ebola vaccine demand in a national household survey during the outbreak in Sierra Leone

BackgroundVaccination against Ebolavirus is an emerging public health tool during Ebola Virus Disease outbreaks. We examined demand issues related to deployment of Ebolavirus vaccine during the 2014–2015 outbreak in Sierra Leone.MethodsA cluster survey was administered to a population-based sample in December 2014 (N = 3540), before any Ebola vaccine was available to the general public in Sierra Leone. Ebola vaccine demand was captured in this survey by three Likert-scale items that were used to develop a composite score and dichotomized into a binary outcome to define high demand. A multilevel logistic regression model was fitted to assess the associations between perceptions of who should be first to receive an Ebola vaccine and the expression of high demand for an Ebola vaccine.ResultsThe largest proportion of respondents reported that health workers (35.1%) or their own families (29.5%) should receive the vaccine first if it became available, rather than politicians (13.8%), vaccination teams (9.8%), or people in high risk areas (8.2%). High demand for an Ebola vaccine was expressed by 74.2% of respondents nationally. The odds of expressing high demand were 13 times greater among those who said they or their families should be the first to take the vaccine compared to those who said politicians should be the first recipients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 13.0 [95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8–21.6]). The ultra-brief measure of the Ebola vaccine demand demonstrated acceptable scale reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.79) and construct validity (single-factor loadings > 0.50).ConclusionPerceptions of who should be the first to get the vaccine was associated with high demand for Ebola vaccine around the peak of the outbreak in Sierra Leone. Using an ultra-brief measure of Ebola vaccine demand is a feasible solution in outbreak settings and can help inform development of future rapid assessment tools.     

Individual factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in between and during pandemic waves (July–December 2020)

BackgroundA year after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the global rollout of vaccines gives us hope of ending the pandemic. Lack of vaccine confidence, however, poses a threat to vaccination campaigns. This study aims at identifying individuals’ characteristics that explain vaccine willingness in Flanders (Belgium), while also describing trends over time (July–December 2020).MethodsThe analysis included data of 10 survey waves of the Great Corona Survey, a large-scale online survey that was open to the general public and had 17,722–32,219 respondents per wave. Uni- and multivariable general additive models were fitted to associate vaccine willingness with socio-demographic and behavioral variables, while correcting for temporal and geographical variability.ResultsWe found 84.2% of the respondents willing to be vaccinated, i.e., respondents answering that they were definitely (61.2%) or probably (23.0%) willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while 9.8% indicated maybe, 3.9% probably not and 2.2% definitely not. In Flanders, vaccine willingness was highest in July 2020 (90.0%), decreased over the summer period to 80.2% and started to increase again from late September, reaching 85.9% at the end of December 2020. Vaccine willingness was significantly associated with respondents’ characteristics: previous survey participation, age, gender, province, educational attainment, household size, financial situation, employment sector, underlying medical conditions, mental well-being, government trust, knowing someone with severe COVID-19 symptoms and compliance with restrictive measures. These variables could explain much, but not all, variation in vaccine willingness.ConclusionsBoth the timing and location of data collection influence vaccine willingness results, emphasizing that comparing data from different regions, countries and/or timepoints should be done with caution. To maximize COVID-19 vaccination coverage, vaccination campaigns should focus on (a combination of) subpopulations: aged 31–50, females, low educational attainment, large households, difficult financial situation, low mental well-being and labourers, unemployed and self-employed citizens.     

Influenza vaccination hesitancy and its determinants among elderly in China: A national cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe Chinese elderly face a significant threat from seasonal influenza, owing to the consistently low vaccination coverage. This study investigated the prevalence and determinants of influenza vaccination hesitancy among the Chinese elderly.MethodsIn 2019, 3849 elderly individuals from 10 provinces in China were recruited in a cross-sectional survey. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to investigate the determinants of influenza vaccination hesitancy.ResultsAmong the elderly respondents, 37.18% expressed some degree of hesitancy towards influenza vaccination: 19.28% were hesitant, and 17.90% refused influenza vaccination, including 19.28% acceptors with doubts and 17.90% refusers. Only 39.10% of the respondents considered themselves as the priority group for influenza vaccination, and 13.93% reported receiving a recommendation for vaccination from healthcare workers. Respondents with higher education levels and from urban areas had significantly higher odds of vaccine hesitancy than their counterparts. Confidence in the safety of vaccines was negatively associated with vaccine hesitancy, but confidence in vaccine efficacy had no such association. Respondents who perceived themselves as highly susceptible to influenza (AOR = 0.85; 95 %CI = 0.77–0.93) and those aware of the elderly as a priority group for influenza vaccination (AOR = 0.51; 95 %CI = 0.41–0.64) had a significantly lower odds of being refusers.ConclusionThis study found a high prevalence of hesitancy towards influenza vaccination among the Chinese elderly, especially well-educated and urban-dwelling respondents. The government should address vaccine hesitancy through culturally appropriate communication, subsidies for vaccination, and actively promoting vaccines through primary care professionals.     

Trust collapse caused by the Changsheng vaccine crisis in China

BackgroundThe public acceptance and implementation of vaccination programs is essential to prevent infectious diseases. However, vaccine adverse events may cause public panic and eventually lead to an increasing number of populations who were hesitant or refuse to participate in these vaccination programs. In 2018, the Changsheng vaccine crisis broke out in mainland China, and 252,600 unqualified DTP vaccines were reported to be used for child vaccination. In this study, we observed media and public reactions toward the vaccine crisis.MethodsThis study conducted Internet surveillance by four mainstream indicators from July 15th to August 7th, including social media (WeChat, Sina Weibo), online news and Baidu search index. We also analyzed the emotional perceptions of people in crisis through an online questionnaire survey.ResultsDuring the crisis, huge number of articles emerged on Internet, 125,882,894 articles (including forwarding) on WeChat friends circle, 1,877,660 Sina Weibo posts, 648,265 online news and 4,986,521 Baidu search indexes. Most of these articles were negative and expressed the public’s weak confidence to the China-made vaccines. Public confidence in vaccines was undermined by the actions of the manufacturer and the government.ConclusionsThe DTP vaccine crisis led to panic about immunization and eroded trust in the immunization program and in the government. Restoring public confidence in Chinese-made vaccines will take a long time, and meticulous management in vaccine production, and strict government regulation will help to alleviate public anxiety about vaccine safety and ultimately restore confidence.     

Perceptions of politicization and HPV vaccine policy support

BackgroundSince its FDA approval in 2006, the Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been politically-charged, given its association with sexual health among young women and its history of controversial, and largely unsuccessful, legislative mandates. The extent to which perceived politicization is related to public support for the vaccine’s use, however, is not clear. We sought to examine the relationship between public perceptions of politicization of the HPV vaccine and public support for HPV vaccine policies.MethodsWe fielded a survey from May-June 2016 using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (18–59 years). Among respondents aware of the HPV vaccine (n = 290), we predict support for HPV vaccine policies based on respondents’ perceptions of three characteristics of the vaccine’s portrayal in public discourse: degree of controversy, certainty of the scientific evidence supporting the vaccine’s use, and frequency with which the vaccine appears in political discussion.ResultsRespondents who perceived greater certainty about the scientific evidence for the HPV vaccine were more supportive of HPV vaccine policies (p < 0.0001) than respondents who perceived the scientific evidence to be uncertain, after adjusting for respondents’ characteristics, including demographics and partisanship.ConclusionsPublic perceptions of the HPV vaccine’s politicization, particularly the portrayal of scientific evidence, are associated with receptivity to legislative mandates.Policy implicationsHow the certainty of a body of evidence gets communicated to the public may influence the policy process for a critical cancer prevention intervention.     

Value of an in-depth analysis of unpublished data on the safety of influenza vaccines in pregnant women

BackgroundUnpublished data can sometimes provide valuable information on the safety of biologic products.MethodsWe assessed information potentially available from regulatory authorities, manufacturers, and public health agencies. We explored 4 recently established vaccine registries, reviewed package inserts from 99 influenza vaccines, and contacted vaccine manufacturers and regulatory agencies for data on influenza vaccine safety in pregnant women.ResultsThe vaccine registries did not have sufficient data to analyze and there are problems with the quality of the information. The majority of package inserts provided no product-specific safety information for pregnant women, especially in less developed countries. The majority of available data come from reports gathered from passive adverse event reporting systems in the general population and reports of women enrolled in clinical trials of influenza vaccines who became pregnant at various times before or after receiving influenza vaccine. The information was not collected in a systematic manner, there are inconsistencies in the follow up of pregnant women and the available information about pregnancy outcomes. Considerable resources would be needed to systematically identify all of the information, try to obtain missing follow up information, and conduct analyses. There would be substantial limitations to any attempt to conduct a systematic analysis.ConclusionsThe value of trying to analyze unpublished data on the safety of influenza vaccine in pregnancy is limited and would require considerable resources to thoroughly investigate. Expanding efforts to identify and review unpublished data regarding the safety of influenza vaccines in pregnancy is not likely to produce information of high scientific value or information that could not be identified from publications and other publically available data.     

Antigen specific vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy

BackgroundVaccinations in pregnancy are recommended for the potential benefits of preventing severe pertussis disease in newborns and for preventing the impact of influenza on the pregnant woman, her foetus in utero and, the newborn in the first six months of life. Published data in Australia suggested that coverage rates were sub-optimal so the reasons for this were reviewed.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 1014 postnatal women, aged 18 years and older, who had given birth in the previous six months was undertaken on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia. Participants completed a brief questionnaire on provided smart tablets at public vaccination clinics or with a researcher by phone or via an on-line link.ResultsJust over 85% of survey respondents received a pertussis booster with many of those not receiving vaccine having had it in a recent pregnancy. Only 36.7% of respondents had an influenza vaccine in pregnancy with key barriers being belief in influenza vaccine, seasonality of parturition and a lack of recommendation from the attending obstetric carers.DiscussionWhile maternal pertussis vaccine programs are a success, work needs to be done to improve the public perception of the risk benefit equation surrounding influenza vaccine in general, and particularly its use in pregnancy. Research is required into approaches to altering practitioner attitudes as well as how to alter public perceptions.     

Expert Opinions on the Most Promising Treatments and Vaccine Candidates for COVID-19: Global Cross-sectional Survey of Virus Researchers in the Early Months of the Pandemic

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic presents a great public health challenge worldwide, especially given the urgent need to identify effective drugs and develop a vaccine in a short period of time. Globally, several drugs and vaccine candidates are in clinical trials. However, because these drugs and vaccines are still being tested, there is still no definition of which ones will succeed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the opinions of over 1000 virus researchers with knowledge on the prevention and treatment of coronavirus-related human diseases to determine the most promising drug and vaccine candidates to address COVID-19.MethodsWe mapped the clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. These data were used to prepare a survey questionnaire about treatments and vaccine candidates for COVID-19. In May 2020, a global survey was conducted with authors of recent scientific publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection related to viruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, coronaviruses, and COVID-19.ResultsRemdesivir, immunoglobulin from cured patients, and plasma were considered to be the most promising treatments in May 2020, while ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 were considered to be the most promising vaccine candidates. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (766/1219, 62.8%) believed that vaccines for COVID-19 were likely to be available in the next 18 months. Slightly fewer than 25% (289/1219, 23.7%) believed that a vaccine was feasible, but probably not within 18 months.ConclusionsThe issues addressed in this study are constantly evolving; therefore, the current state of knowledge has changed since the survey was conducted. However, for several months after the survey, the respondents’ expectations were in line with recent results related to treatments and vaccine candidates for COVID-19.     

Impact of a COVID-19 certificate requirement on vaccine uptake pattern and intention for future vaccination. A cross-sectional study among French adults

BackgroundIn August 2021, France enacted a COVID-19 certificate requirement (vaccination/recovery/test) to access specific services, with mandates for professional groups. We evaluated the impact of this incentive-coercive policy in terms of vaccine uptake equality, future vaccine intention and confidence in authorities’ crisis management.MethodsIn late August 2021, a representative sample of adults (18–75 years) completed an internet-based questionnaire. We classified vaccinated participants by stated reasons for vaccination and estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using multivariable Poisson regression. Counterfactual vaccine status assumed non-vaccination of those vaccinated for the certificate. We analysed the association of free-text testimonial themes with level of confidence in authorities.ResultsAmong 972 participants, 85.7% were vaccinated or intended vaccination: 3.6% only for certificate/mandate, 17.7% mainly for certificate/mandate plus other reasons, and 64.4% mainly for other reasons. In the counterfactual situation, vaccine uptake would have been significantly more likely among older vs. younger participants (aPR = 1.35) and among those with moderate-high vs. low levels of confidence in authorities for COVID-19 crisis management (aPR = 2.04). In the observed situation, confidence was the only significant determinant of vaccine status (moderate-high vs. low, aPR = 1.39). Among those without genuine motivation for vaccination, professionally active persons were more likely to have ceded to the certificate requirement (aPR = 3.76). Those vaccinated only for the certificate were more likely to express future COVID-19 vaccine intention than unvaccinated persons (aPR = 6.41). Themes significantly associated with lower confidence were criticism of morality (aPR = 1.76) and poor communication by the authorities (aPR = 1.66).ConclusionThe incentive-coercive policy has reduced the negative association of vaccine status with younger age and low confidence in authorities, but may have reinforced isolation of professionally inactive persons. The requirement did not negatively impact future COVID-19 vaccine intention. Future vaccine-incentive policies should pay special attention to populations with low levels of confidence in authorities.     

Use of the Community Assessment for Public Health Response (CASPER) method to assess influenza vaccination and activity in Brazos County,Texas

ObjectivesBased on an increase in influenza cases in Brazos County, Texas, a Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) was conducted by the Brazos County Health Department (BCHD) and the Texas A&M School of Public Health’s EpiAssist program. The goal of the CASPER was to supplement other data sources to assess vaccination rates and influenza prevalence in the community during a period of high influenza activity nationwide.MethodsUsing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) CASPER toolkit, 30 census blocks in Brazos County were selected probability proportionate to population size. Seven interviews were attempted in each selected census block by an interview team. The survey contained 21 questions in 5 domains, including demographics, general infection control knowledge, prior infection with influenza, prior experience with influenza vaccine, and attitudes towards influenza vaccination. Survey results were entered into a database for the calculation of frequencies, crude odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsTwo-hundred and seven households completed the survey. Estimated vaccination rates in Brazos County adults were higher than Texas adults overall, but rates did not differ among children. Forty-two (20.4%) of respondents reported having influenza illness during the month of December 2017. Overall, respondents were knowledgeable of influenza transmission and prevention and reported few barriers and objections to the vaccine; however, some responses suggest misinformation that could be addressed through communication from local health departments exists. African American/Black respondents were less likely to receive a vaccine than respondents of other races, while individuals age 65 and over as well as those who believed the vaccine to be effective were more likely to be vaccinated.ConclusionCASPER should be considered a tool for assessing influenza vaccine and disease status of communities and has potential for providing information useful in the development of public health initiatives.     

Off-label use of vaccines

This article reviews the off-label recommendations and use of vaccines, and focuses on the differences between the labelled instructions on how to use the vaccine as approved by the regulatory authorities (or “label”¹), and the recommendations for use issued by public health advisory bodies at national and international levels. Differences between public health recommendations and the product label regarding the vaccine use can lead to confusion at the level of vaccinators and vaccinees and possibly result in lower compliance with national vaccination schedules. In particular, in many countries, the label may contain regulatory restrictions and warnings against vaccination of specific population groups (e.g. pregnant women) due to a lack of evidence of safety from controlled trials at the time of initial licensure of the vaccine, while public health authorities may recommend the same vaccine for that group, based on additional post-marketing data and benefit risk analyses.We provide an overview of the different responsibilities between regulatory authorities and public health advisory bodies, and the rationale for off-label use² of vaccines, the challenges involved based on the impact of off-label use in real-life. We propose to reduce off-label use of vaccines by requiring the manufacturer to regularly adapt the label as much as possible to the public health needs as supported by new evidence. This would require manufacturers to collect and report post-marketing data, communicate them to all stakeholders and regulators to extrapolate existing evidence (when acceptable) to other groups or to other brands of a vaccine (class effect³). Regulatory authorities have a key role to play by requesting additional post-marketing data, e.g. in specific target groups. When public health recommendations for vaccine use that are outside labelled indications are considered necessary, good communication between regulatory bodies, public health authorities, companies and health care providers or vaccinators is crucial. Recommendations as well as labels and label changes should be evidence-based. The rationale for the discrepancy and the recommended off-label use of a vaccine should be communicated to providers.     

Vaccine confidence among parents: Large scale study in eighteen European countries

BackgroundDespite the fact that vaccines save 2–3 million lives worldwide every year, a percentage of children are not getting appropriately vaccinated, thus leading to disease outbreaks. One of the major reasons of low vaccine uptake in Europe is vaccine hesitancy, contributing to the recent measles outbreaks. Monitoring of vaccine hesitancy is valuable in early identification of vaccine concerns.MethodsWe performed an eighteen country European survey on parents’ attitudes and behaviors regarding their children’s immunization. Parents having at least one child 1–4 years old were mostly recruited by primary care paediatricians to reply to a web-based questionnaire.The questionnaire was developed by the European Academy of Paediatrics Research in Ambulatory Setting Network steering committee, based on similar surveys. An individual level hesitancy score was constructed using the answers to 21 questions, and correlations of the score with socio-demographic characteristics and types of providers were explored. To assess inter country differences, a country level self -reported confidence was defined.ResultsFifty six percent and 24% of 5736 respondents defined themselves as “not at all hesitant”, and “somewhat hesitant”, respectively. Parents who consulted general practitioners were more hesitant than parents who consulted pediatricians (p < 0.05). Consultation with homeopathists was associated with the highest reported hesitancy (p < 0.05). Vaccine confidence was highest in Portugal and Cyprus, and lowest in Bulgaria and Poland.ConclusionThe majority of parents in Europe believe in the importance of childhood vaccination. However, significant lack of confidence was found in certain European countries, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring, awareness and response plans. The possible influence of different types of healthcare providers on parental decisions demonstrated for the first time in our survey, calls for further research. Monitoring and continuous medical education efforts aimed mostly at those professionals who might not be likely to recommend vaccination are suggested.     

From COVID-19 vaccine candidates to compulsory vaccination: The attitudes of Italian citizens in the key 7-month of vaccination campaign

IntroductionThe aim of the study is to understand the evolution of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance over the key 7-month vaccine campaign in Italy, a period in which the country moved from candidate vaccines to products administered to the public. The research focus points to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine attitudes in adults and their children, propension towards compulsory vaccination, past and present adherence to anti-flu and anti-pneumococcal vaccines, and the reasons for trust/mistrust of vaccines.MethodsItalian residents aged 16->65 years were invited to complete an online survey from September 2020 to April 2021. The survey contained 13 questions: 3 on demographic data; 8 on vaccine attitudes; and 2 open-ended questions about the reasons of vaccine confidence/refusal. A preliminary word frequency analysis has been conducted, as well as a statistical bivariate analysis.ResultsOf 21.537 participants, the confidence of those in favor of the COVID-19 vaccine increases of 50 % and the number of people who wanted more information decreases by two-third. Willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 also increased from 51 % to 66.5 %. Only one-third of the strong vaccine-hesitant participants, i.e. 10 %, remained hostile. Compulsory vaccination showed a large and increasing favor by participants up to 78 %, in a way similar to their propensity for children’s mandatory vaccination (70.6 %). Respondents’ past and present adherence to anti-flu and anti-pneumococcal vaccines does not predict their intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19. Finally, a semantic analysis of the reasons of acceptance/refusal of COVID-19 vaccination suggests a complex decision-making process revealed by the participants’ use of common words in pro-and-cons arguments.ConclusionThe heterogeneity in the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, determinants and opinions detected at different ages, genders and pandemic phases suggests that health authorities should avoid one-size-fits-all vaccination campaigns. The results emphasize the long-term importance of reinforcing vaccine information, communication and education needs.     

Vaccine hesitancy and self-vaccination behaviors among nurses in southeastern France

BackgroundHealth care worker vaccine uptake rates are below official targets, and studies demonstrate some are vaccine hesitant. We assessed self-vaccination behavior, vaccine hesitancy (VH), and associated factors in a representative sample of nurses.MethodsCross-sectional questionnaire survey in 2017–18 in southeastern France (5 million inhabitants): community nurses were randomly selected from a list provided by the Inter-Regional Nurses' Council (stratified by gender and district of practice) and interviewed by telephone. Because no such list exists for hospital nurses (74% of all nurses in southeastern France), we randomly selected hospitals, taking their size into account and stratifying by district. Hospital nurses practicing in medicine, surgery, obstetrics, and gynecology departments and present at the time of the survey were included and interviewed face-to face. We measured VH according to the WHO definition (refusal, delay, or acceptance with doubts about at least one vaccine). Interviewers administered the questionnaires. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyze potential associations between VH, vaccine risk perceptions and trust in health authorities.ResultsInterviews were completed with 1539 nurses (response rate: 85%). Self-reported vaccine coverage ranged from 27% (seasonal influenza vaccine, recommended, 2016/17 season) to 96% (Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine, mandatory). The VH prevalence rate was 44% (95% confidence interval: 38.7–48.4) and most often concerned seasonal influenza or A(H1N1) vaccines (54%) and the hepatitis B vaccine (18%). VH was significantly more frequent among nurses with low trust in health authorities or high vaccine risk perceptions.ConclusionNurses in southeastern France have low levels of self-vaccination acceptance for most recommended vaccines. In addition, they have a high VH prevalence focused on the same vaccines as among the general population. These are important findings given that nurses are in regular contact with patients vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and their VH could negatively influence patients’ vaccination acceptance.     

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its socio-demographic and emotional determinants: A multi-country cross-sectional study

BackgroundMultiple COVID-19 vaccines have now been licensed for human use, with other candidate vaccines in different stages of development. Effective and safe vaccines against COVID-19 have been essential in achieving global reductions in severe disease caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but multiple factors, including vaccine supply and vaccine confidence, continue to impact global uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. In this study, we explore determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intent across17 countries worldwide.MethodsIn this large-scale multi-country study, we explored intent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and the socio-demographic and emotional determinants of uptake for 17 countries and over 19,000 individuals surveyed in June and July 2020 via nationally representative samples. We used Bayesian ordinal logistic regressions to probe the relationship between intent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine and individuals’ socio-demographic status, their confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and their recent emotional status. Gibbs sampling was used for Bayesian model inference, with 95% Bayesian highest posterior density intervals used to capture uncertainty.FindingsIntent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine was found to be highest in India, where 77?8% (95% HPD, 75?5 to 80?0%) of respondents strongly agreeing that they would take a new COVID-19 vaccine if it were available. The Democratic Republic of Congo (15?5%, 12?2 to 18?6%) and France (26?4%, 23?7 to 29?2%) had the lowest share of respondents who strongly agreed that they would accept a COVID-19. Confidence in the safety, importance, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines are the most widely informative determinants of vaccination intent. Socio-demographic and emotional determinants played a lesser role, with being male and having higher education associated with increased uptake intent in five countries and being fearful of catching COVID-19 also a strong determinant of uptake intent.InterpretationBarriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are found to be country and context dependent. These findings highlight the importance of regular monitoring of COVID-19 vaccine confidence to identify groups less likely to vaccinate.