Parental attitudes in the pediatric emergency department about the COVID-19 vaccine

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccinations are now recommended in the United States (U.S.) for children ≥ 6 months old. However, pediatric vaccination rates remain low, particularly in the Hispanic/Latinx population.ObjectiveUsing the 4C vaccine hesitancy framework (calculation, complacency, confidence, convenience), we examined parental attitudes in the emergency department (ED) towards COVID-19 vaccination, identified dimensions of parental vaccine hesitancy, and assessed parental willingness to have their child receive the COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsAs part of a larger multi-methods study examining influenza vaccine hesitancy, we conducted interviews that included questions about COVID-19 vaccine authorization for children. We used directed content analysis to extract qualitative themes from 3 groups of parents in the ED: Hispanic/Latinx Spanish speaking (HS), Hispanic/Latinx English speaking (HE), non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White English speaking (WE). Themes were triangulated with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey, where higher scores indicate increased vaccine hesitancy.ResultsFactors influencing vaccine hesitancy were mapped to the 4C framework from 58 sets of interviews and PACVs. HE and HS parents, compared to WE parents, had less knowledge about COVID-19 and its vaccine, and more beliefs in COVID-19 vaccine myths. However, both HS and HE parent groups were more inclined to endorse COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness as a reason to have their children vaccinated. HS parents felt that COVID-19 increased their fear of illnesses in general and were worried about confusing COVID-19 with other infections. Median PACV scores of HS (Mdn = 20) and HE (Mdn = 20) parent groups were higher than of WE parents (Mdn = 10), but parental willingness to have their child receive COVID-19 vaccination was similar across groups.ConclusionsHigher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HS and HE parents compared to WE parents may be attributed to insufficient knowledge about COVID-19, its vaccine, along with COVID-19 vaccine myths. Efforts to provide targeted vaccine education to different populations is warranted.     

Preferences for COVID-19 vaccination information and location: Associations with vaccine hesitancy,race and ethnicity

This study examined the association between preferences for being informed about the COVID-19 vaccine and where to receive it with vaccination intent and race/ethnicity. We conducted an online survey, oversampling Black and Latino panel members. The 1668 participants were 53.2% female, 34.8% White, 33.3% Black, and 31.8% Latino. Participants who were vaccine hesitant (answered “not sure” or “no” to vaccination intent) were more likely to prefer a conversation with their doctor compared to those who answered “yes” (25.0% and 23.4% vs 7.8%, P < .001, respectively). Among participants who responded “not sure”, 61.8% prefer to be vaccinated at a doctor’s office, compared with 35.2% of those who responded “yes” (P < .001). Preferred location differed by race/ethnicity (P < .001) with 67.6% of Black “not sure” participants preferring a doctor’s office compared to 60.2% of Latino and 54.9% of White “not sure” participants. These findings underscore the need to integrate healthcare providers into COVID-19 vaccination programs.     

Reactogenicity within 2 weeks after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: Findings from the CDC v-safe surveillance system

BackgroundPost-authorization monitoring of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is needed to better characterize their reactogenicity. We assessed reactions reported during the 2 weeks after receipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines.MethodsWe monitored persons who enrolled in v-safe after vaccination health checker^SM, a U.S. smartphone-based vaccine monitoring system, after receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. V-safe participants received text message prompts to complete web-based surveys. We analyzed responses from persons who received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 from December 14, 2020 through March 14, 2021 and completed at least one survey by March 28, 2021. We measured the proportion of participants reporting local and systemic reactions solicited in surveys completed days 0 through 7 post-vaccination. For day 14 surveys, participants described new or worsening symptoms in a free-text response. We assessed the proportion of participants reporting new or worsening local and systemic reactions.ResultsOne-third of participants were aged <45 years, two-thirds were female, and approximately half received BNT162b2 vaccine. A total of 4,717,908 participants reported during the 7 days after dose 1 and 2,906,377 reported during the 7 days after dose 2. Most reported at least one injection-site reaction (68.5% after dose 1; 72.9% after dose 2) or at least one systemic reaction (50.6% after dose 1; 69.5% after dose 2). Reactogenicity was greater after dose 2 and among mRNA-1273 recipients, persons aged <45 years, and females. New or worsening local and systemic reactions were uncommon during week 2 after either dose; the most frequent were local reactions for dose 1 mRNA-1273 recipients (2.6%). These reactions were reported more often among females after dose 1 mRNA-1273 (3.6%).ConclusionsDuring post-authorization monitoring among >4 million vaccinees, local and systemic reactions were commonly reported following mRNA-based vaccines. Reactions were most common during the first week following dose 2 and among persons aged <45 years, females, and mRNA-1273 recipients.     

Priming with social benefit information of vaccination to increase acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccine hesitancy can be heightened due to increasing negative reports about vaccines. Emphasizing the social benefits of vaccination may shift individual attention from individual to social benefit of vaccination and hence promote prosocial vaccination. In six rounds of a population-based survey conducted over one major community epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong from June to November 2020, we manipulated the question asking about acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine with or without emphasizing the social benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 (prosocial priming) and monitored the changes of vaccine confidence by news media sentiment on vaccines. Population-weighted percentages of accepting COVID-19 vaccines by priming condition and vaccine confidence were compared across survey rounds. Logit regression models assessed the main effect of prosocial priming and the modification effects of vaccine confidence and perceived personal risk from COVID-19 on acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. We found that prosocial priming significantly increased acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines across all survey rounds except for Round 3 when incidence of COVID-19 reached a peak. Vaccine confidence significantly declined in Round 6 when news media sentiment on vaccines became predominantly negative. The effect of prosocial priming on promoting vaccine acceptance was significantly greater in participants with low vaccine confidence and those perceiving the severity of COVID-19 to be mild/very mild. Our study suggests that packaging vaccination against COVID-19 as a prosocial behaviour can help overcome low vaccine confidence and promote prosocial vaccination particularly when disease incidence temporarily declines and the public perceive low severity of COVID-19.     

Safety of simultaneous vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

IntroductionSafety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).MethodsWe utilized VSD’s COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1–21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1–42 days following dose 2 by SV type received (“All SV”, “Influenza SV”, “Non-influenza SV”).ResultsSV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06–4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10–7.06) in the “All SV” group following dose 1, and for Bell’s palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14–6.97) in the “Influenza SV” group following dose 2.ConclusionCombined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing.     

Negative sentiments toward novel coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines

Addressing negative vaccine sentiments is paramount to COVID-19 prevention efforts. However, assessing population sentiments is challenging due to the desirability bias that can emerge when directly asking respondents for their opinions on vaccination. Social media data, containing people’s unfiltered thoughts, have the potential to offer valuable insights that could guide vaccine promotion messaging. We extracted one week’s (4/5–4/11, 2020) worth of COVID-19 vaccine posts on Twitter (tweets) from the U.S. (N = 208,973) and segmented tweets with negative sentiments toward COVID-19 vaccines (n = 14,794). We imputed location based on Twitter users’ self-reported state of residence. We found that states in the South had significantly higher prevalence of negative tweets compared to states in other parts of the country, and higher-income states reported lower prevalence of negative tweets. Our findings suggest the existence of negative vaccine sentiments and geographic variability in these opinions, warranting tailored vaccine promotion efforts, particularly for the southern U.S.     

How to model the impact of vaccines for policymaking when the characteristics are uncertain: A case study in Thailand prior to the vaccine rollout during the COVID-19 pandemic

Thailand faced a dilemma of which groups to prioritise with a limited first tranche of COVID-19 vaccinations in early 2021, at a time when there was low incidence and low mortality in the country. A mathematical modelling analysis was performed to compare the potential short-term impact of allocating the available doses to either the high severity group (over 65-year-olds) or the high transmission group (aged 20–39). At the time of the analysis, there was uncertainty about the precise characteristics of the vaccines available, in terms of their potential impact on transmission and reductions to the severity of infection. As such, a range of vaccine characteristic scenarios, with differing levels of severity and transmission reductions were explored. Using the evidence available at the time regarding severity reduction of infection due to the vaccines, the model suggested that vaccinating high severity group should be the priority if reductions in deaths is the priority. Vaccinating this group was found to have a direct impact on reducing the number of deaths, while the incidence and hospitalisations remained unchanged. However, the model found that vaccinating the high transmission group with a vaccine with sufficiently high protection against infection (more than 70%) could provide enough herd effects to delay the expected epidemic peak, resulting in both case and death reductions in both target groups. The model explored a 12-month time horizon. These analyses helped to inform the vaccination strategy in Thailand throughout 2021 and can inform future modelling studies for policymaking when the characteristics of vaccines are uncertain.     

The impact of COVID-19 vaccines on fertility-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundDespite literature’s evidence about COVID-19 vaccines' safety, concerns have arisen regarding adverse events, including the possible impact on fertility, accentuated by misinformation and anti-vaccine campaigns. The present study aims to answer the question: Is there any impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the fertility of men and women of reproductive age?MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until June 8th, 2022. The search was restricted to articles regarding humans, published in any languages, without additional restrictions. Studies’ quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and the Before and After Quality Assessment scales for cohort and pre-post studies, respectively. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed for parameters considered in ≥ 2 studies, calculating means, p-values and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs).ResultsOut of 1406 studies screened, 29 were included in the systematic review. These studies, conducted in Israel (34.5 %), USA (24.1 %), Russia (20.7 %) China (10.3 %), Italy (3.5 %), North America (3.5%) and Turkey (3.5 %) were of poor (34.5 %), moderate (58.6 %) and good (6.9 %) quality. Meta-analyses were performed for pre- and post-vaccination sperm progressive motility (44 %, 95 % CI 42 %-62 % vs 43 %, 95 % CI 31 %-59 % p = 0.07) and concentration (50.6 mln/ml, 95 % CI 35.1–72.8 vs 55.4 mln/ml, 95 % CI 37.4–82.2p = 0.12). Biochemical (0.51, 95 % CI 0.40–0.66 vs 0.60, 95 % CI 0.53–0.68p = 0.45) and clinical (0.45, 95 % CI 0.37–0.54 vs 0.47, 95 % CI 0.40–0.55 p = 0.31) pregnancy rate did not differ among vaccinated and not vaccinated groups. Subgroup meta-analyses based on the type of vaccine showed no significant difference: between vaccinated with mRNA vaccines and non-vaccinated regarding biochemical pregnancy rates; pre- and post-vaccination with Gam-COVID-Vac regarding testosterone, FSH and LH levels; pre- and post-vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccines regarding sperm volumes.ConclusionBased on the studies published so far, there is no scientific proof of any association between COVID-19 vaccines and fertility impairment in men or women.     

The critical role of background rates of possible adverse events in the assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety

Beginning in December of 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in China and is now a global pandemic with extensive morbidity and mortality. With the emergence of this threat, an unprecedented effort to develop vaccines against this virus began. As vaccines are now being introduced globally, we face the prospect of millions of people being vaccinated with multiple types of vaccines many of which use new vaccine platforms. Since medical events happen without vaccines, it will be important to know at what rate events occur in the background so that when adverse events are identified one has a frame of reference with which to compare the rates of these events so as to make an initial assessment as to whether there is a potential safety concern or not. Background rates vary over time, by geography, by sex, socioeconomic status and by age group. Here we describe two key steps for post-introduction safety evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines: Defining a dynamic list of Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) and establishing background rates for these AESI. We use multiple examples to illustrate use of rates and caveats for their use. In addition we discuss tools available from the Brighton Collaboration that facilitate case evaluation and understanding of AESI.     

Anaphylaxis rates associated with COVID-19 vaccines are comparable to those of other vaccines

We retrieved data on 8940 anaphylaxis cases post-COVID-19 vaccination from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and the European EudraVigilance from week 52/2020 through week 31/2021 and compared them with those of other vaccines. Overall, 837,830,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses were delivered in the US and Europe during the study period, for which the vaccine name was known. The mean anaphylaxis rate was estimated at 10.67 cases per 10⁶ doses of COVID-19 vaccines (range: 7.99-19.39 cases per 10⁶ doses depending on the vaccine). COVID-19 vaccines ranked fifth in reported anaphylaxis rates, behind rabies, tick-borne encephalitis, measles-mumps-rubella-varicella, and human papillomavirus vaccines (70.77, 20, 19.8, and 13.65 cases per 10⁶ vaccine doses, respectively). COVID-19 vaccines are within the range of anaphylaxis rates reported across several common vaccines in these two passive reporting systems. These data should be communicated to reassure the general population about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.     

Towards a population-based threshold of protection for COVID-19 vaccines

Correlates of protection for COVID-19 vaccines are urgently needed to license additional vaccines. We measured immune responses to four COVID-19 vaccines of proven efficacy using a single serological platform. IgG anti-Spike antibodies were highly correlated with ID50 neutralization in a validated pseudoviral assay and correlated significantly with efficacies for protection against infection with wild-type, alpha and delta variant SARS-CoV-2 virus. The protective threshold for each vaccine was calculated for IgG anti-Spike antibody. The mean protective threshold for all vaccine studies for WT virus was 154 BAU/ml (95 %CI 42–559), and for studies with antibody distributions that enabled precise estimation of thresholds (i.e. leaving out 2-dose mRNA regimens) was 60 BAU/ml (95 %CI 35–102). We propose that the proportion of individuals with responses above the appropriate protective threshold together with the geometric mean concentration can be used in comparative non-inferiority studies with licensed vaccines to ensure that new vaccines will be efficacious.     

Hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines on social media in Canada

To effectively end the pandemic, the acceptance of effective vaccines against COVID-19 is critical. Comments posted in online platforms act as a barometer for understanding public concerns regarding vaccination and can be used to inform communication strategies for the ‘moveable middle’. The aim of this exploratory study was to identify online dialogue regarding the nature of vaccine hesitancy related to COVID-19 vaccine(s). We analyzed user comment threads in response to news reports regarding COVID-19 vaccines on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation national news website (with as many as 9.4 million unique visitors per day). User comments (n = 1145) were extracted from 19 articles between March 2020 and June 15th, 2020. Comments were then coded inductively for content to establish a coding framework that was subsequently applied to the dataset. Our data provide empirical support for misrepresentation as a form of misinformation and further demonstrate the utility of social media content as data for social research that informs public health communication materials. The data point to the need for, and value of, rapid communication interventions to foster vaccine acceptance. False information will continue to create challenges for delivering COVID-19 vaccines. Communication strategies to get ahead of the pace of misinformation are critical, particularly in light of boosters and the possibility of COVID-19 vaccination on an annual basis.     

Twitter discourse reveals geographical and temporal variation in concerns about COVID-19 vaccines in the United States

The speed at which social media is propagating COVID-19 misinformation and its potential reach and impact is growing, yet little work has focused on the potential applications of these data for informing public health communication about COVID-19 vaccines. We used Twitter to access a random sample of over 78 million vaccine-related tweets posted between December 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021 to describe the geographical and temporal variation in COVID-19 vaccine discourse. Urban suburbs posted about equitable distribution in communities, college towns talked about in-clinic vaccinations near universities, evangelical hubs posted about operation warp speed and thanking God, exurbs posted about the 2020 election, Hispanic centers posted about concerns around food and water, and counties in the ACP African American South posted about issues of trust, hesitancy, and history. The graying America ACP community posted about the federal government’s failures; rural middle American counties posted about news press conferences. Topics related to allergic and adverse reactions, misinformation around Bill Gates and China, and issues of trust among Black Americans in the healthcare system were more prevalent in December, topics related to questions about mask wearing, reaching herd immunity and natural infection, and concerns about nursing home residents and workers increased in January, and themes around access to black communities, waiting for appointments, keeping family safe by vaccinating and fighting online misinformation campaigns were more prevalent in February. Twitter discourse around COVID-19 vaccines in the United States varied significantly across different communities and changed over time; these insights could inform targeted messaging and mitigation strategies.     

Exploring the attitudes,concerns, and knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccine by the parents of children with rheumatic disease: Cross-sectional online survey

BackgroundVaccination programs are effective strategies in preventing infectious diseases and controlling epidemics. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in children has not yet been approved globally, and it is unclear what attitude families will take when it is approved in children. We aimed to investigate the underlying causes of vaccine acceptance, hesitation, and refusal, as well as concerns about the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine by parents of children with rheumatic diseases.MethodsParents of children followed up with a diagnosis of rheumatic disease in the pediatric rheumatology outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included in the study. We applied a closed web-based online survey conducted cross-sectionally and sent to the participants via mobile smartphones.ResultsFor fathers, mothers, and their children, acceptance rates for a COVID-19 vaccine were 64.2%, 57.7%, and 41.8%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, factors affecting parents' acceptance of vaccines for their children were as follows: “Receiving antirheumatic medications regularly (AOR 5.40, 95% CI 1.10–26.33, p = 0.03), the previous history of getting special recommended vaccines (AOR 4.12, 95% CI 1.12–27.85, p = 0.03), relying on vaccines for ending pandemic (AOR 8.84, 95% CI 2.80–27.85, p = 0.001), complying with the pandemic measures entirely (AOR 5.24, 95% CI 1.46–18.74, p = 0.01)“. The two most common reasons for vaccine rejection were fear of the side effects of the vaccine and its possible interaction with rheumatic drugs used by children.ConclusionAccording to our survey, parents were more likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves than their children. The success of COVID-19 vaccination programs sources highly on people's willingness to accept the vaccine. It is crucial to vaccinate children for achieving herd immunity and in terms of avoiding vaccine hesitancy. Larger data examining the causes of concerns in parents of both healthy children and children with chronic diseases should be delineated.     

Evidence for antibody as a protective correlate for COVID-19 vaccines

A correlate of protection (CoP) is urgently needed to expedite development of additional COVID-19 vaccines to meet unprecedented global demand. To assess whether antibody titers may reasonably predict efficacy and serve as the basis of a CoP, we evaluated the relationship between efficacy and in vitro neutralizing and binding antibodies of 7 vaccines for which sufficient data have been generated. Once calibrated to titers of human convalescent sera reported in each study, a robust correlation was seen between neutralizing titer and efficacy (ρ = 0.79) and binding antibody titer and efficacy (ρ = 0.93), despite geographically diverse study populations subject to different forces of infection and circulating variants, and use of different endpoints, assays, convalescent sera panels and manufacturing platforms. Together with evidence from natural history studies and animal models, these results support the use of post-immunization antibody titers as the basis for establishing a correlate of protection for COVID-19 vaccines.     

Decisions about adopting novel COVID-19 vaccines among White adults in a rural state,USA: A qualitative study

Purpose

Many people, especially in rural areas of the United States, choose not to receive novel COVID-19 vaccinations despite public health recommendations. Understanding how people describe decisions to get vaccinated or not may help to address hesitancy.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 rural inhabitants of Maine, a sparsely populated state in the northeastern US, about COVID-19 vaccine decisions during the early rollout (March–May 2021). We used the framework method to compare responses, including between vaccine Adopters and Non-adopters.

Findings

Adopters framed COVID-19 as unequivocally dangerous, if not personally, then to other people. Describing their COVID concerns, Adopters emphasized disease morbidities. By contrast, Non-adopters never mentioned morbidities, referencing instead mortality risk, which they perceived as minimal. Instead of risks associated with the disease, Non-adopters emphasized risks associated with vaccination. Uncertainty about the vaccine development process, augmented by social media, bolstered concerns about the long-term unknown risks of vaccines. Vaccine Adopters ultimately described trusting the process, while Non-adopters expressed distrust.

Conclusion

Many respondents framed their COVID vaccination decision by comparing the risks between the disease and the vaccine. Associating morbidity risks with COVID-19 diminishes the relevance of vaccine risks, whereas focusing on low perceived mortality risks heightens their relevance. Results could inform efforts to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the rural US and elsewhere.

Patient or Public Contribution

Members of Maine rural communities were involved throughout the study. Leaders of community health groups provided feedback on the study design, were actively involved in recruitment, and reviewed findings after analysis. All data produced and used in this study were co-constructed through the participation of community members with lived experience.     

Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines through analysis of Twitter content and users

BackgroundWith the global continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the large-scale administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is crucial to achieve herd immunity and curtail further spread of the virus, but success is contingent on public understanding and vaccine uptake. We aim to understand public perception about vaccines for COVID-19 through the wide-scale, organic discussion on Twitter.MethodsThis cross-sectional observational study included Twitter posts matching the search criteria ((‘covid*’ OR ‘coronavirus’) AND ‘vaccine’) posted during vaccine development from February 1st through December 11th, 2020. These COVID-19 vaccine related posts were analyzed with topic modeling, sentiment and emotion analysis, and demographic inference of users to provide insight into the evolution of public attitudes throughout the study period.FindingsWe evaluated 2,287,344 English tweets from 948,666 user accounts. Individuals represented 87.9 % (n = 834,224) of user accounts. Of individuals, men (n = 560,824) outnumbered women (n = 273,400) by 2:1 and 39.5 % (n = 329,776) of individuals were ≥40 years old. Daily mean sentiment fluctuated congruent with news events, but overall trended positively. Trust, anticipation, and fear were the three most predominant emotions; while fear was the most predominant emotion early in the study period, trust outpaced fear from April 2020 onward. Fear was more prevalent in tweets by individuals (26.3 % vs. organizations 19.4 %; p < 0.001), specifically among women (28.4 % vs. males 25.4 %; p < 0.001). Multiple topics had a monthly trend towards more positive sentiment. Tweets comparing COVID-19 to the influenza vaccine had strongly negative early sentiment but improved over time.InterpretationThis study successfully explores sentiment, emotion, topics, and user demographics to elucidate important trends in public perception about COVID-19 vaccines. While public perception trended positively over the study period, some trends, especially within certain topic and demographic clusters, are concerning for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These insights can provide targets for educational interventions and opportunity for continued real-time monitoring.     

烟台市18岁及以上人群新冠疫苗加强免疫接种意愿调查

目的 调查烟台市18岁及以上人群新冠疫苗加强免疫的接种意愿,为相关卫生主管部门开展新冠肺炎加强免疫工作提供参考.方法 采用整群抽样方法,在烟台市14个区市中,每个区市随机抽取2个城市社区和2个行政村作为调查区域,对区域内18岁及以上全部人群进行问卷调查.结果 共有138 664名研究对象完成问卷调查,94.52％的研究...