Parents’ views on the acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine for their children: A cross-sectional study in Abu Dhabi-United Arab Emirates

BackgroundThe United Arab Emirates had approved the COVID-19 vaccine for children. Assessing parents’ acceptance of the vaccine for their children will influence decision-making in the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.MethodParents registered in the Abu Dhabi Department of Education (12,000 families) were invited to complete an online questionnaire from 8th September 2021 to 17th October 2021. Out of the 12,000 families, 2510 (21%) participants answered the survey. The questionnaire investigated the parents’ attitudes and beliefs regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsThe vaccination rate among this group of respondents was high, with 2255 (89.9%) having received two doses and 1002 (45.5%) having already received a booster dose. Acceptance of the respondents to vaccinate their children was high, (75.1%) said they would vaccinate their children, with 64.4% reporting that they would immediately vaccinate their children if the vaccine were made available. Determinants of COVID-19 child vaccination acceptance included the respondent’s vaccination status—i.e., if the respondent is already vaccinated (OR 4.96 [2.89–8.53]) or has taken the third dose (OR 2.37 [1.4–4.01])—their children’s age (OR 1.11 [1.30–1.18] for older children), and their trust in the following information sources: the government (OR 2.53 [1.61–3.98]), health care providers (OR 1.98 [1.2–3.24]), or social media (OR 2.17 [1.22–3.88]). Increased level of education had a negative impact on the acceptance of giving the vaccine to children (OR 0.63 [0.52–0.77]); fear of side effects OR 0.000164 (0.000039–0.001) was another determinant. The main factor that encouraged parents to give their children the vaccine was to protect their child’s health as reported by 1537 (55.5%) participants.ConclusionThe Abu Dhabi community is highly accepting of the vaccine for their children. Future studies of how this vaccine acceptance can influence the pandemic are needed.     

How frequent are acute reactions to COVID-19 vaccination and who is at risk?

IntroductionOur objective was to describe and compare self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in the USA.MethodsA web-based registry enrolled volunteers who received a COVID-19 vaccine between March 19–July 15, 2021. We collected self-reported short-term side effects, medical consultation, hospitalization, and quality of life impact following completed vaccination regimens (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J).ResultsWe recruited 6,966 volunteers who completed their full course of vaccination (median age 48 years, IQR 35.0–62.0; 83.6% female): Pfizer 3,486; Moderna 2,857; J&J 623. Few (3.1%) sought medical care for post-vaccination side effects. Hospitalization (n = 17; 0.3%) and severe allergic reactions (n = 39; 0.6%) also were rare. Those with autoimmune disease or lung disease were approximately twice as likely to seek medical care (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.01, 95% CI:1.39; 2.92 and aOR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.12; .58 respectively). 92.4% of participants reported ≥ 1 side effect (median 3), with injection site reactions (78.9%), fatigue (70.3%), headache (49.0%) reported most frequently. More side effects were reported after the second dose of two-dose vaccines (medians: 1 vs. 2 for Pfizer and 1 vs. 3 for Moderna for first and second doses respectively) versus 3 for J&J's single-dose vaccine. For the employed, the median number of workdays missed was one. Diabetics and those vaccinated against influenza were substantially less likely to report 3 or more symptoms (aOR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.56;0.82] and aOR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73;0.93, respectively).DiscussionThe total side effect burden was, not unexpectedly, greater with two-dose regimens but all three vaccines appear relatively safe. Very few subjects reported side effects serious enough to warrant medical care or reported post-vaccination hospitalization. While these findings do not address possible long-term effects, they do inform on their short-term safety and tolerability and will hopefully provide some reassurance and positively inform the benefit-risk and pharmacoeconomic assessment for all three vaccines.See Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04368065.     

Brief education to promote maternal influenza vaccine uptake: A randomized controlled trial

BackgroundAlthough pregnant women are the highest priority group for seasonal influenza vaccination, maternal influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a brief education intervention on maternal influenza vaccine uptake.MethodsDuring the 2013–14 and 2014–15 influenza seasons, we recruited 321 pregnant women from the antenatal clinics of 4 out of 8 public hospitals in Hong Kong with obstetric services. Hospitals were geographically dispersed and provided services to pregnant women with variable socioeconomic backgrounds. Participants were randomized to receive either standard antenatal care or brief one-to-one education. Participants received telephone follow-up at 2 weeks postpartum. The primary study outcome was self-reported receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who initiated discussion about influenza vaccination with a health care professional and the proportion of participants who attempted to get vaccinated.ResultsCompared with participants who received standard care, the vaccination rate was higher among participants who received brief education (21.1% vs. 10%; p = 0.006). More participants in the education group initiated discussion about influenza vaccination with their HCP (19.9% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.10), but the difference was not statistically significant. Of participants who did not receive the influenza vaccine (n = 271), 45 attempted to get vaccinated. A significantly higher proportion of participants who attempted to get vaccinated were in the intervention group (82.2% vs. 17.8%; p < 0.001). If participants who had attempted vaccination had received the vaccine, vaccination rates would have been substantially higher (44.1% vs. 15%; p < 0.001). Twenty-six participants were advised against influenza vaccination by a healthcare professional, including general practitioners, obstetricians, and nurses.ConclusionAlthough brief education was effective in improving vaccination uptake among pregnant women, overall vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Multicomponent approaches, including positive vaccination recommendations by healthcare professionals, are needed to promote maternal influenza vaccination.Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01772901).     

Predictors of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Results of a nationwide survey

BackgroundPublic polling indicates that vaccine uptake will be suboptimal when COVID-19 vaccines become available. Formative research seeking an understanding of weak vaccination intentions is urgently needed.MethodsNationwide online survey of 804 U.S. English-speaking adults. Compensated participants were recruited from the U.S. through an internet survey panel of 2.5 million residents developed by a commercial survey firm. Recruitment was based on quota sampling to produce a U.S. Census-matched sample representative of the nation with regard to region of residence, sex, and age.ResultsCOVID-19 vaccination intentions were weak, with 14.8% of respondents being unlikely to get vaccinated and another 23.0% unsure. Intent to vaccinate was highest for men, older people, individuals who identified as white and non-Hispanic, the affluent and college-educated, Democrats, those who were married or partnered, people with pre-existing medical conditions, and those vaccinated against influenza during the 2019–2020 flu season.In a multiple linear regression, significant predictors of vaccination intent were general vaccine knowledge (β = 0.311, p < .001), rejection of vaccine conspiracies (β = ?0.117, p = .003), perceived severity of COVID-19 (β = 0.273, p < .001), influenza vaccine uptake (β = 0.178, p < .001), having ≥ 5 pre-existing conditions (β = 0.098, p = .003), being male (β = 0.119, p < .001), household income of ≥ $120,000 (β = 0.110, p = .004), identifying as a Democrat (β = 0.075, p < .029), and not relying upon social media for virus information (β = -0.090, p 〈0 0 2). Intent to vaccinate was lower for Fox News (57.3%) than CNN/MSNBC viewers (76.4%) (χ2 (1) = 12.68, p < .001). Political party differences in threat appraisals and vaccine conspiracy beliefs are described.ConclusionsDemographic characteristics, vaccine knowledge, perceived vulnerability to COVID-19, risk factors for COVID-19, and politics likely contribute to vaccination hesitancy.     

What predicts postpartum pertussis booster vaccination? A controlled intervention trial

Background‘Cocooning’ aims to protect susceptible infants from pertussis via caregiver vaccination. Control trials evaluating educational interventions to promote cocooning are lacking. We evaluated the role of message-framing vs. standard health information in promoting pertussis vaccination.MethodsWe recruited postpartum women from a maternity hospital in Sydney, Australia (November 2010–July 2012). Participants self-completed a pertussis knowledge and attitudes questionnaire. We then assigned pertussis-susceptible (no pertussis vaccine ≤10 years) participants to receive a gain-framed, loss-framed pamphlet or control (Government Pertussis factsheet) using weekly sequential block allocation. Next, participants were offered a pertussis vaccine (dTpa) and completed a post-questionnaire on discharge.ResultsA baseline questionnaire was completed for 96.4% (1433/1486) of postpartum women approached. Missing data was excluded (n = 29). Next, participants (1404) were screened for vaccine status: 324 (23%) reported prior pertussis booster vaccine receipt, leaving 1080 participants requiring vaccination. Among susceptible mothers, 70% (754/1080) were vaccinated post-intervention. Rates were similar between ‘gain’, ‘loss’ or ‘control’ pamphlets (69.1% vs. 71.8% vs. 68.8%; p = 0.62). Intention to be vaccinated (OR 2.46, p < 0.001; 95% CI: 1.69–3.58), perceived vaccine benefits (OR: 1.61, p < 0.001; 95% CI: 1.25–2.15) and having received a vaccine recommendation (OR 1.68; p = 0.025; 95% CI: 1.07–2.65) were independent predictors of vaccine uptake. At discharge, overall pertussis vaccine coverage had increased from 23% to 77% among women screened (1078/1404).ConclusionA cocooning strategy for pertussis vaccination can be highly effective when partially implemented within maternity hospitals, with information accompanied by a funded vaccine. Mothers were highly receptive to vaccination in the postnatal ward: facts about pertussis were as effective as message-framing in promoting a high uptake of 70%. Perceived vaccine benefits, intentions and vaccine recommendation were important predictors of uptake. Our intervention trial increased the existing pertussis vaccine coverage of 23–77%.     

The impact of COVID-19 on income and employment and willingness to become vaccinated among African Americans enrolled in a smoking cessation randomized trial

Given vulnerability to COVID-19 among smokers and vaccine hesitancy among populations disproportionately burdened with COVID-19, it’s important to understand concerns about vaccines and the impact of COVID-19 on these subgroups. Among our all African American (AA) sample of smokers (N = 172) enrolled in a larger smoking cessation clinical trial, results demonstrated an intensive burden from COVID-19; 42 (24.4%) lost employment, 56 (32.6%) lost household income, and 66 (38.4%) reported inability to pay bills and buy food due to COVID. Most, 103 (64.4%), were willing to get vaccinated. Among the vaccine-hesitant, 57 (35.6%), concerns about COVID-19 vaccine development and mistrust in vaccines were primary reasons for unwillingness to get vaccinated. Few identified doctor’s advice as most valued in deciding if the vaccine was the best option. Findings highlight high openness to the vaccine among smokers impacted by COVID but reiterate the need for community-engaged versus health system-driven approaches to improve vaccine hesitancy among racial/ethnic minorities.     

Lower vaccine uptake amongst older individuals living alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis of social determinants of vaccine uptake

IntroductionVaccination is a key intervention to reduce infectious disease mortality and morbidity amongst older individuals. Identifying social factors for vaccine uptake enables targeted interventions to reduce health inequalities.ObjectiveTo systematically appraise and quantify social factors associated with vaccine uptake amongst individuals aged ≥60 years from Europe.MethodsWe searched Medline and Embase from inception to 24/02/2016. The association of vaccine uptake was examined for social factors relevant at an individual level, to provide insight into individuals’ environment and enable development of targeted interventions by healthcare providers to deliver equitable healthcare. Factors included: living alone, marital status, education, income, vaccination costs, area-level deprivation, social class, urban versus rural residence, immigration status and religion. Between-study heterogeneity for each factor was identified using I²-statistics and Q-statistics, and investigated by stratification and meta-regression analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted, when appropriate, using fixed- or random-effects models.ResultsFrom 11,754 titles, 35 eligible studies were identified (uptake of: seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) only (n = 27) or including pneumococcal vaccine (PV) (n = 5); herpes zoster vaccine (n = 1); pandemic influenza vaccine (n = 1); PV only (n = 1)). Higher SIV uptake was reported for individuals not living alone (summary odds ratios (OR) = 1.39 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16–1.68). Lower SIV uptake was observed in immigrants and in more deprived areas: summary OR = 0.57 (95%CI: 0.47–0.68) and risk ratio = 0.93 (95%CI: 0.92–0.94) respectively. Higher SIV uptake was associated with higher income (OR = 1.26 (95%CI: 1.08–1.47)) and higher education (OR = 1.05 (95%CI: 1–1.11)) in adequately adjusted studies. Between-study heterogeneity did not appear to result from variation in categorisation of social factors, but for education was partly explained by varying vaccination costs (meta-regression analysis p = <0.0001); individuals with higher education had higher vaccine uptake in countries without free vaccination.ConclusionsQuantification of associations between social factors and lower vaccine uptake, and notably living alone (an overlooked factor in vaccination programmes), should enable health professionals target specific social groups to tackle vaccine-related inequalities.     

Promoting Tdap immunization in pregnancy: Associations between maternal perceptions and vaccination rates

ObjectiveTdap vaccine uptake among US pregnant women is low despite current recommendations. This study evaluated if a Tdap vaccine information statement (VIS) affected overall perception, vaccination intention, and components of a health behavior model associated with Tdap vaccination rates.MethodsA randomized, prospective study was conducted among pregnant women receiving care at two women's clinics in May–August 2014. Verbally consented participants were randomized to receive either the standard CDC Tdap VIS (sVIS) or a modified version (mVIS) before completing the first multi-part survey (T1). After T1, participants read their assigned VIS then completed the second part (T2). A 2015 chart review identified vaccinated participants. A health behavior model was hypothesized using the Reasoned Action Approach and Health Belief Model. Logistic regression, path analysis, and chi-square tests were used in the analysis.Results279 surveys were analyzed. Average age of the participants was 26.4 years (SD = 5.7) with average gestational age of 25.9 weeks (SD = 9.2). 13% self-reported receiving Tdap vaccine prior to the survey. Overall perception scores significantly increased (3.1–3.4, p < 0.001) after VIS review. A chart review showed that 131 (47%) received the vaccine post study. There was no significant difference in vaccination rates between the sVIS and mVIS groups (45% vs. 49%). Perceived benefits (B = 0.315) and self-efficacy (B = 0.197) were positively associated with the overall perception (T1), while perceived barriers (B = −0.191) were negatively associated with the overall perception (T1). Social norms (B = 0.230), self-efficacy (B = 0.213), and perceived benefits (B = 0.117) were positively associated with vaccination intention (T1). The vaccination intention (T2) was positively associated with participants’ decision to receive Tdap vaccine (B = 0.223).ConclusionA VIS improved overall perception of the Tdap vaccine. Vaccination intention was a predictor of Tdap vaccination. It is crucial to provide information about immunization benefits to promote maternal Tdap vaccination.     

National Study of Youth Opinions on Vaccination for COVID-19 in the U.S.

PurposeThis study aimed to understand the potential barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination among youth.MethodsOpen-ended questions regarding COVID-19 vaccination were posed to a national cohort of 14- to 24-year-olds (October 30, 2020). Responses were coded through qualitative thematic analysis. Multivariable logistic regression tested the association of demographic characteristics with vaccination unwillingness.ResultsAmong 911 respondents (response rate = 79.4%), 75.9% reported willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 42.7% had unconditional willingness, and 33.3% were conditionally willing, of which the majority (80.7%) were willing if experts deemed vaccination safe and recommended. Preferred vaccine information sources were medical organizations (42.3%; CDC, WHO) and health care professionals (31.7%). Frequent concerns with vaccination included side effects (36.2%) and efficacy (20.1%). Race predicted vaccination unwillingness (Black: odds ratio = 3.31; and Asian: odds ratio = .46, compared with white, p < .001).ConclusionMost youth in our national sample were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when they believe it is safe and recommended. Public health experts and organizations must generate youth-centered materials that directly address their vaccination concerns.     

Association between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and bleeding episodes: Large population-based cohort study

ObjectiveTo compare prevalence of skin, nose and gingival bleedings after receipt of adeno-vectored or mRNA-vaccines against COVID-19. The hypothesis is that milder symptoms indicating altered thrombocyte function may affect a larger proportion of vaccinated individuals than the recently reported severe cases with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.MethodsUsing an ongoing large, population-based cohort study, more than 80 000 cohort participants were asked through electronic questionnaires about COVID-19 vaccination and potential side effects during weeks 11–13, 2021. The response rate was 58% (81267/138924). Among the vaccinated, 83% were female, 85% health care workers and 80% were aged 40–55 years.The prevalence of self-reported episodes of skin, nose and gingival bleedings were compared after mRNA and adenovirus-vectored vaccination. Estimates were adjusted for age, sex, occupation, previous COVID-19 infection and chronic disease.ResultsFour of the 3416 subjects (0.2%) who were vaccinated with a single dose of mRNA vaccine reported skin bleeding as a side effect, as opposed to 163 of 5132 subjects (3.2%) vaccinated with a single dose of the adenovirus-vectored vaccine, OR (odds ratio) = 16.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.5–34.1). Corresponding ORs for nose and gingival bleeding were 8.0 (4.0–15.8) and 9.3 (4.3–20.0), respectively.ConclusionsThese findings could potentially indicate that the adenovirus-vectored vaccine may lead to mild bleeding episodes in a larger proportion of vaccinated individuals, and not only in rare cases with documented thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. Studies are needed to understand the possible mechanisms behind these observations, and to establish or refute whether they share similarities with the severe thromboembolic bleeding complications.     

Parents’ and guardians’ views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine: A multi-methods study in England

BackgroundThe availability of a COVID-19 vaccine has been heralded as key to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccination programme success will rely on public willingness to be vaccinated.MethodsWe used a multi-methods approach - involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews - to investigate parents’ and guardians’ views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine. 1252 parents and guardians (aged 16 + years) who reported living in England with a child aged 18 months or under completed the survey. Nineteen survey participants were interviewed.FindingsMost survey participants reported they would likely accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves (Definitely 55.8%; Unsure but leaning towards yes 34.3%) and their child/children (Definitely 48.2%; Unsure but leaning towards yes 40.9%). Less than 4% of survey participants reported that they would definitely not accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Survey participants were more likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves than their child/children. Participants that self-reported as Black, Asian, Chinese, Mixed or Other ethnicity were almost 3 times more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves and their children than White British, White Irish and White Other participants. Survey participants from lower-income households were also more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine. In open-text survey responses and interviews, self-protection from COVID-19 was reported as the main reason for vaccine acceptance. Common concerns identified in open-text responses and interviews were around COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness, mostly prompted by the newness and rapid development of the vaccine.ConclusionInformation on how COVID-19 vaccines are developed and tested, including their safety and efficacy, must be communicated clearly to the public. To prevent inequalities in uptake, it is crucial to understand and address factors that may affect COVID-19 vaccine acceptability in ethnic minority and lower-income groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19.     

Safety and immunogenicity of a 9-valent HPV vaccine in females 12–26 years of age who previously received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine

ObjectivesTo assess the safety and immunogenicity of the investigational 9-valent (6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58) HPV (9vHPV) vaccine in prior recipients of a 3-dose regimen of quadrivalent (6/11/16/18) HPV (qHPV) vaccine.MethodsV503-006 was a randomized, double-blinded, safety/tolerability and immunogenicity study of the 9vHPV vaccine in females 12–26 years of age who were previously vaccinated with qHPV vaccine. Subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 3 doses of 9vHPV vaccine (n = 618) or saline placebo (n = 306) at day 1, month 2, and month 6. Systemic, injection-site and serious adverse experiences (AEs) were monitored. Serum samples were collected at day 1, month 2, and month 7. Anti-HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 titers were measured using the 9-valent HPV competitive Luminex Immunoassay (cLIA).ResultsThe frequency of injection-site AEs (days 1–5 following any vaccination) was higher in the 9vHPV vaccine group than in the placebo group (91.1% and 43.9%, respectively). The frequencies of vaccine-related systemic AEs (days 1–15 following any vaccination) were generally comparable between the 2 groups (30.6% in the 9vHPV vaccine group, and 25.9% in the placebo group). One vaccine-related serious AE was reported in each of the 9vHPV vaccine and placebo groups. Few subjects (9vHPV = 0.5%; placebo = 0%) discontinued due to an AE. At 4 weeks post-dose 3, over 98% of subjects in the 9vHPV vaccine group were seropositive for HPV types 31/33/45/52/58, with marked elevations in cLIA geometric mean titers (GMTs) to these HPV types. Anti-HPV 31/33/45/52/58 GMTs were lower than in subjects administered 9vHPV vaccine who had not previously received qHPV vaccine (based on cross-study analyses); the clinical significance of this difference is unknown.ConclusionsAdministration of a 3-dose regimen of 9vHPV vaccine to adolescent girls and young women 12–26 years of age who are prior qHPV vaccine recipients is highly immunogenic with respect to HPV types 31/33/45/52/58 and generally well tolerated.     

HPV vaccination and risk of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: A nationwide register-based study from Norway

BackgroundVaccination has been suggested to be involved in the aetiology of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). HPV vaccine was introduced in the Norwegian Childhood Immunisation Programme and offered 12 year old girls from 2009. We studied the association between HPV vaccination and risk of CFS/ME and also assessed medical history in relation to both risk of CFS/ME and HPV vaccine uptake.MethodsIndividual data from national registries, including the Norwegian Population Registry, the Norwegian Patient Registry and the Norwegian Immunisation Registry were linked using the unique personal identification number. Yearly incidence rates of CFS/ME for 2009–2014 were calculated among the 824,133 boys and girls, aged 10–17 living in Norway during these 6 years. A total of 176,453 girls born 1997–2002 were eligible for HPV vaccination and included in further analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) of CFS/ME were estimated using Cox regression. Risk differences (RDs) of vaccine uptake were estimated with binomial regression.ResultsA similar yearly increase in incidence rate of CFS/ME was observed among girls and boys, IRR = 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.19) and 1.15 (95% CI 1.09–1.22), respectively. HPV vaccination was not associated with CFS/ME, HR = 0.86 (95% CI 0.69–1.08) for the entire follow-up period and 0.96 (95% CI 0.64–1.43) for the first two years after vaccination. The risk of CFS/ME increased with increasing number of previous hospital contacts, HR = 5.23 (95% CI 3.66–7.49) for 7 or more contacts as compared to no contacts. Girls with 7 or more hospital contacts were less likely to be vaccinated than girls with no previous hospital contacts, RD = −5.5% (95% CI −6.7% to −4.2%).ConclusionsNo indication of increased risk of CFS/ME following HPV vaccination was observed among girls in the first 6 birth cohorts offered HPV vaccine through the national immunisation programme in Norway.     

From current vaccine recommendations to everyday practices: An analysis in five sub-Saharan African countries

BackgroundEstimates of WHO and UNICEF vaccination coverage may provide little insight into the extent to which vaccinations are administered on time. Yet, lack of adherence to the recommended age to receive a specific vaccination may have detrimental health consequences. For example, delays in receiving vaccination will prolong the risk of lack of protection, often when disease risk is highest, such as during early infancy. We estimated the reported age at vaccination, and vaccine coverage at different ages in children from five sub-Saharan African countries.MethodsWe analyzed data from the latest Demographic and Health Programme databases available for Burkina Faso 2010 (n = 15,044 observations), Ghana 2008 (n = 2992), Kenya 2008–9 (n = 6079), Senegal 2010–11 (n = 12,326), and Tanzania 2010 (n = 8023). We assessed, amongst vaccinees, the exact age when vaccine was administered for the three infant doses of pentavalent vaccine (DTP) and the first dose of measles-containing-vaccine (MCV), as well as the proportion of children immunized with these antigens by a certain age. Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) coverage was evaluated as a potential contact visit for vaccine introduction.ResultsFor all DTP doses, the median intervals between recommended and actual ages of receiving vaccination ranged from 12, 17 and 23 days in Kenya, to 22, 33 and 45 days in Senegal. MCV was mostly given during the recommended age of 9 months. In each country, there was a large discrepancy in the median age at DTP vaccination between regions. VAS coverage in young children ranged from 30.3% in Kenya to 78.4% in Senegal, with large variations observed between areas within each study country.ConclusionIn the context of new vaccine introduction, age of children at vaccination should be monitored to interpret data on vaccine-preventable disease burden, vaccine effectiveness, and vaccine safety, and to adapt targeted interventions and messages.     

Acute unsolicited adverse events following BNT162b2 vaccine in Saudi Arabia,a real-world data

BackgroundAcute adverse events and anaphylaxis were reported after the administration of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines. We aim to explore the nature and outcome of adverse events following BNT162B2 vaccine in a community vaccination center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.MethodWithin 30 min post vaccination, all acute adverse events (AAEs) that occurred before March 31st, 2021, and in people older than 16 years were reviewed (AAE group). We used the case definition of Brighton collaboration on vaccine safety to define anaphylaxis. Patients’ demographics, comorbidities, allergy history, and outcome at disposition were collected. Observation duration after vaccination was short (<15 min) or extended (<3 h). Statistical analysis was performed to study AAEs association with the study variables and outcomes.ResultsOut of 71,221 vaccine recipients, 144 (0.002%) had developed 345 AAEs, at a rate of 48.4 events per 10,000 dose administered. The majority of cases in AAE group were first dose recipients (93.8%) and previously healthy (59%), while the minority had a previous history of allergy (6.3%) or a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (4.2%). We found a significant association between female gender and the occurrence of any AAE (p-value = 0.002). Per every 10,000 doses administered, non-anaphylactic AAEs were dizziness (17.8), headache (9.7), nausea (7.1), or syncope (3.2). Only one in every ten AAEs was considered serious and resulted in an extended observation (4.8 per 10,000 doses), but only 1/144 required hospitalization for non-anaphylaxis reasons (0.1 per 10,000 doses). According to the Brighton collaboration definition of anaphylaxis, no single case of high certainty anaphylaxis was recorded. No death was documented in this cohort.ConclusionAcute adverse events due to BNT162b2 vaccine were rare and mostly non-serious with a tendency to occur more in women. Further prospective studies on larger vaccine recipients to evaluate the incidence of anaphylaxis in the Saudi population are warranted.     

Workplace availability,risk group and perceived barriers predictive of 2016–17 influenza vaccine uptake in the United States: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundSeasonal influenza, though mostly self-limited in the healthy adult, may lead to severe disease and/or complications in subpopulations. Annual influenza vaccination is available in many countries with coverage goals rarely being met. We conducted a cross-sectional study of influenza vaccine uptake and explored socio-demographic, economic, and psychological factors that explained vaccine uptake.MethodsThe survey was administered via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to United States residents in January 2017, using the Qualtrics platform. Using principal axis factor analysis, we reduced the 25 items theory-based psychological determinants into the primary constructs they measure if/when internal consistency was sufficient (Cronbach’s alpha >0.60). Logistic regression models were used to quantify the association of socio-demographic, economic, and psychological factors with reported vaccine behavior in the 2016–17 flu season.Results1007 participants completed the survey, sex distribution was even, 67% had 25–44 years of age, and 61% annual household income of $30–99 thousand United States dollars. About 25% had the flu shot offered at their workplace and 20% reported belonging to a group for whom the flu shot is recommended. Vaccine uptake was 31.5%. Eight predictors remained in the final adjusted model (R² = 0.489), having the vaccine offered at the workplace, belonging to a group for whom the vaccine is recommended, and higher perceived barriers were the strongest predictors of vaccine uptake, increasing (and decreasing in the case of barriers) the odds by >3-fold. Additionally, higher household income, higher perceived susceptibility and higher perceived benefits also independently predicted vaccine uptake.DiscussionWe found evidence that perceived barriers significantly impaired vaccine uptake to the same extent that having the vaccine offered at the workplace or belonging to a group for whom the vaccine is recommended facilitated uptake. Ideally, a better understanding of drivers of vaccine hesitancy will result in improved interventions to increase vaccine uptake.     

Comparison of influenza vaccination coverage between immigrant and Australian-born adults

Australia has a large immigrant population but there are few data regarding whether influenza vaccine coverage in adults varies according to country of birth. We quantified and compared self-reported influenza vaccination coverage between Australian-born and immigrant residents aged ⩾49 years enrolled in a large cohort (the 45 and Up Study), surveyed in 2012 and 2013. Estimated vaccine coverage was adjusted for age, sex and other factors known to be associated with vaccine uptake. Among 76,040 participants included in the analyses (mean age 66.2 years), 21.6% were immigrants. In Australian-born adults aged 49–64 and 65+ years the age- and sex-adjusted estimates for influenza vaccination within the year prior to survey was 39.5% (95% CI 38.9–40.0) and 70.9% (70.4–71.5) respectively. The corresponding estimates in immigrants were significantly lower at 34.8% (33.7–35.8) and 64.4% (63.4–65.4) respectively. Among immigrants, coverage varied by region of birth, and was slightly lower among those who spoke a language other than English at home compared to those who only spoke English. Among immigrants there was no significant difference in coverage comparing those who migrated when they were children to those who migrated as adults and coverage did not differ significantly according to years lived in Australia. Programs to increase adult vaccination coverage should consider the needs of immigrants.     

Vaccination coverage among social and healthcare workers in ten countries of Samu-social international sites

BackgroundWe aim to determine the vaccination coverage of social and healthcare workers in International sites of Samusocial, providing emergency care to homeless people, and to assess factors associated with having received necessary doses at adulthood.MethodsData on immunization coverage of social and healthcare workers were provided by a cross-sectional survey, conducted from February to April 2015 among 252 Samusocial workers in 10 countries. Vaccination status and characteristics of participants were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. Prevalence rate ratio (PRR) of vaccination status was calculated using Poisson regression models.ResultsAmong 252 Samusocial social and health workers who felt a questionnaire, median age was 39 years, 42.1% were female, 88.9% were in contact with homeless beneficiaries (19.1% health workers). Overall, 90.1% of Samusocial staff felt adult vaccinations was useful and 70.2% wished to receive booster doses in future. Vaccination coverage at adulthood was satisfactory for diphtheria and poliomyelitis (96%), but low for influenza (20.8%), meningococcus (50.5%), hepatitis B (56.3%), yellow fever (58.1%), measles (81.3%) and pertussis (90.7%). The main reasons for not having received vaccination booster doses were forgetting the dates of booster doses (38.4%) and not having received the information (13.5%). In adjusted analysis, prevalence of up-to-date for vaccination schedule was 35% higher among health workers than among social workers (aPRR = 1.35, 95%CI: 1.01–1.82, P = 0.05) and was 56% higher among workers who had a documentary evidence of vaccination than in those who did not (aPRR = 1.56, 95%CI: 1.19–2.02, P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe Samusocial International workers vaccine coverage at adulthood was insufficient and disparate by region. It is necessary to strengthen the outreach of this staff and increase immunization policy for hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, and measles, as well as for yellow fever, rabies and meningococcal ACYW135 vaccines in at risk regions.