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

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

COVID-19 vaccination coverage in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – A cross-sectional study in Hungary

IntroductionCoronavirus infection is a particular risk for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), because they are much more likely to become severely ill due to oxygen supply problems. Primary prevention, including COVID-19 vaccination is of paramount importance in this disease group. The aim of our study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage in COPD patients during the first vaccination campaign of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study (CHANCE) has been conducted in COPD patients in the eastern, western and central regions of Hungary from 15th November 2021. The anthropometric, respiratory function test results and vaccination status of 1,511 randomly selected patients were recorded who were aged 35 years and older.ResultsThe median age was 67 (61–72) years, for men: 67 (62–73) and for women: 66 (60–72) years, with 47.98 % men and 52.02 % women in our sample. The prevalence of vaccination coverage for the first COVID-19 vaccine dose was 88.62 %, whereas 86.57 % of the patients received the second vaccine dose. When unvaccinated (n = 172) and double vaccinated (n = 1308) patients were compared, the difference was significant both in quality of life (CAT: 17 (12–23) vs 14 (10–19); p < 0.001) and severity of dyspnea (mMRC: 2 (2–2) vs 2 (1–2); p = 0.048). The COVID-19 infection rate between double vaccinated and unvaccinated patients was 1.61 % vs 22.67 %; p < 0.001 six months after vaccination. The difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients was significant (8.14 % vs 0.08 %; p < 0.001) among those with acute COVID-19 infection hospitalized. In terms of post-COVID symptoms, single or double vaccinated patients had significantly fewer outpatient hospital admissions than unvaccinated patients (7.56 vs 0 %; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe COVID-19 vaccination coverage was satisfactory in our sample. The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines by patients with COPD is of utmost importance because they are much more likely to develop severe complications.     

Differences in clinical outcomes of COVID-19 among vaccinated and unvaccinated kidney transplant recipients

IntroductionThe remarkable efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines have been described in healthy individuals, but kidney transplant recipients have been excluded from these studies. Therefore, real-world evidence of these vaccines can guide clinicians in predicting complications in kidney transplant recipients and how many doses of vaccines are protective. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 vaccines on kidney transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Material and methodThis matched case-control study included vaccinated kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 from two centers between 1 May and 1 October 2021. All patients in the vaccinated group received a minimum of two doses of the vaccine and were diagnosed with COVID-19 at least one month after the last dose. Each vaccinated patient was matched with an unvaccinated kidney transplant recipient diagnosed with COVID. The endpoints were all-cause mortality, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, acute kidney injury, cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.ResultsThe median age of vaccinated seventy-two participants was 45 years, and 41 of the participants were men in the vaccinated group. Four patients in the vaccinated group and nine patients in the control group died during follow-up (p = 0.247). Seventeen patients in the vaccinated group, thirty-four participants in the control group were hospitalized (p = 0.004); five vaccinated patients and ten unvaccinated patients were followed-up in the ICU during follow-up (p = 0.168). Thirteen of the vaccinated and twelve unvaccinated patients developed acute kidney injury (p = 0.16). The occurrence of cytokine storm (n = 4 vs. n = 11; p = 0.061) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5 vs. n = 10; p = 0.168) was higher in the patient group compared to the control group.ConclusionCOVID-19 remains a fatal disease despite advancing treatment modalities and preventive strategies. COVID-19 vaccines can't prevent death in all kidney transplant recipients, but they decrease hospitalization rate and duration in most patients.     

Reducing the rates of household transmission: The impact of COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers with a known household exposure

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on infection rates in healthcare workers (HCWs) with a household exposure.MethodsRetrospective cohort study 8410 HCWs (400 fully vaccinated, 1645 partially vaccinated, 6365 unvaccinated), employed by a large integrated healthcare system in the southeastern United States, tested for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1 and February 26, 2021.ResultsBenefit of vaccination persisted even with household exposure, with unvaccinated HCWs being 3.7 to 7.7 times more likely to be infected than partially or fully vaccinated HCW with positive household contacts respectively (partial OR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.17 – 6.47; full OR = 7.67, CI 2.75 – 21.35). Whereas 89.4% of unvaccinated COVID-positive HCWs with known household exposures were symptomatic, 50% of fully vaccinated HCWs had symptoms, reducing risk of secondary spread from and between HCWs.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination provided protection against infection even amongst healthcare workers with close household contact, and after adjusting for community prevalence.     

Parental intentions to vaccinate children against COVID-19: Findings from a U.S. National Survey

We examined parents' COVID-19 vaccination intentions for their children, reasons for not vaccinating, and the potential impact of a school/daycare vaccination requirement or pediatrician’s recommendation on vaccination intentions. Two online surveys were conducted in June–July and September–October 2021, before pediatric COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for emergency use in children age < 12 years, with an internet-based, non-probability sample of U.S. adults. Respondents with children (age < 18 years) in the household were asked about their intention (likelihood) of vaccinating these children against COVID-19. Weighted Chi-square tests using a Rao-Scott correction were performed. Vaccinated (45.7 %) versus unvaccinated (6.9 %) parents were almost seven times more likely to have vaccinated their 12–17-year-old children against COVID-19. Approximately 58.4 % of respondents with unvaccinated children ages 2–11 years and 42.4 % of those with children < 2 years said they are “very” or “extremely likely” to vaccinate these children against COVID-19. Female parents were significantly more likely (p < .01 to p < .001) to express lower levels of COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Across all age groups of children unvaccinated against COVID-19, parental vaccine intentions increased with increased household income and education levels. COVID-19 vaccine side effects and safety concerns were primary reasons for not vaccinating children. Strategies including school vaccination requirements and recommendations from pediatricians were shown to increase parental COVID-19 vaccination intentions for some. More research is needed on factors that increase/hinder COVID-19 pediatric vaccine uptake.     

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.     

Strategic silences,eroded trust: The impact of divergent COVID-19 vaccine sentiments on healthcare workers' relations with peers and patients

BackgroundPolarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients. Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage.MethodsInterviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients.ResultsMost participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others’ openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments.DiscussionBelgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in “strategic silences” around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium’s, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks.     

COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduces morbidity and absenteeism among healthcare personnel: A prospective multicenter study

AimHealthcare personnel (HCP) are prioritized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination to protect them and non-disruptive provision of healthcare services. We assessed the impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on morbidity and absenteeism among HCP.MethodsWe studied 7445 HCP in five tertiary-care hospitals in Greece from November 15, 2020 through April 18, 2021.ResultsA total of 910 episodes of absenteeism and 9695 days of absence were recorded during the entire study period. Starting from January 4, 2021, 4823/7445 HCP (64.8%) were fully or partially vaccinated. Overall, 535 episodes of absenteeism occurred from January 4, 2021 through April 18, 2021, including 309 (57.76%) episodes among 2622 unvaccinated HCP and 226 (42.24%) episodes among 4823 vaccinated HCP (11.8 versus 4.7 episodes of absenteeism per 100 HCP, respectively; p-value < 0.001). The mean duration of absenteeism was 11.9 days among unvaccinated HCP compared with 6.9 days among vaccinated HCP (p-value < 0.001). Unvaccinated HCP more frequently developed acute respiratory infection, influenza-like illness, and COVID-19 (p-values < 0.001 for all comparisons). Vaccine effectiveness for fully vaccinated HCP was estimated at 94.16% [confidence interval (CI): 88.50%-98.05%) against COVID-19, 83.62% (CI: 73.36%-90.38%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (asymptomatic or COVID-19), and 66.42% (CI: 56.86%-74.15%) against absenteeism.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on healthcare workforce. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine significantly reduced morbidity, COVID-19, absenteeism and duration of absenteeism among HCP during a period of high SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the community. It is expected that HCP vaccination will protect them and healthcare services and contain healthcare costs.     

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers and the effect of nudging interventions: A mixed methods study

BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has a critical role because of their high-risk exposure and being a role model. Therefore, we aimed to investigate vaccine hesitancy and the role of mandatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and education for vaccine uptake.MethodsWe conducted an explanatory sequential designed observational mixed-methods study, including quantitative and qualitative sections consecutively in two different pandemic hospitals between 15 September 2021 and 1 April 2022. The characteristics of vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs were compared. The vaccine hesitancy scales were applied, and the effect of nudging, such as mandatory PCR and education, were evaluated. In-depth interviews were performed to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HCWs according to Health Belief Model.ResultsIn total, 3940 HCWs were included. Vaccine hesitancy was more common among males than females, the ancillary workers than other health professions, and nonmedical departments than other departments. After the mandatory weekly PCR request nudge, 83.33 % (130/156) vaccine-hesitant HCWs were vaccinated, and 8.3 % (13/156) after the small group seminars and mandatory PCR every two days. The rate of COVID-19 vaccination was raised from 95.5 % to 99.67 % (3927/3940). At the end of in-depth interviews (n = 13), the vaccine hesitancy determinants were distrust, fear of uncertainty, immune confidence and spirituality, the media effect, social pressure, and obstinacy.ConclusionsThe nudging interventions such as mandatory PCR testing and small group seminars helped raise the rate of COVID-19 vaccination; the most effective one is mandatory PCR.     

Change in COVID19 outbreak pattern following vaccination in long-term care facilities in Flanders,Belgium

IntroductionLong term care facilities for elderly (LTCFs) in Europe encountered a high disease burden at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, these facilities were the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines in many European countries. A limited COVID-19 vaccine supply early 2021 resulted in a majority of residents and healthcare workers (HCWs) in LTCFs being vaccinated compared to a minority in the general population. This study exploits this imbalance to assess the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccination in containing outbreaks in LTCFs.MethodsExploratory statistics were performed using data from a COVID-19 surveillance system covering all 842 LTCFs in Flanders (the northern region of Belgium). The number and size of COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCFs were compared (1) before and after introducing vaccines and (2) with the status of the pandemic in the general population. Based on individual data from 15 LTCFs, the infection rate and symptoms of vaccinated and unvaccinated residents and HCWs were compared during a COVID-19 outbreak.Results95.8% of the residents and 90.9% of the HCWs in Flemish LTCFs were vaccinated before May 30, 2021. Before vaccine introduction, residents in LTCFs were 10 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than the general population of Flanders. This ratio reversed after vaccination. Furthermore, after vaccination fewer and shorter outbreaks were observed involving fewer residents. During these outbreaks, vaccinated and unvaccinated residents were equally likely to test positive, but positive vaccinated residents were less likely to develop severe symptoms. In contrast, unvaccinated HCWs were more likely to test positive.ConclusionIn the first half of 2021, two-dose vaccination was highly efficient in preventing and containing outbreaks in LTCFs, reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. The high likelihood of unvaccinated HCWs to be involved in COVID-19 outbreaks in vaccinated LTCFs emphasizes the importance of vaccinating HCWs.     

Perceived public health threat a key factor for willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine in Australia

BackgroundVaccination rollout against COVID-19 is underway across multiple countries worldwide. Although the vaccine is free, rollout might still be compromised by hesitancy or concerns about COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsWe conducted two online surveys of Australian adults in April (during national lockdown; convenience cross-sectional sample) and November (very few cases of COVID-19; nationally representative sample) 2020, prior to vaccine rollout. We asked about intentions to have a potential COVID-19 vaccine (If a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, I will get it) and free-text responses (November only).ResultsAfter adjustment for differences in sample demographics, the estimated proportion agreeing to a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available in April (n = 1146) was 76.3%. In November (n = 1941) this was estimated at 71.5% of the sample; additional analyses identified that the variation was driven by differences in perceived public health threat between April and November. Across both surveys, female gender, being younger, having inadequate health literacy and lower education were associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, belief that data on the efficacy of vaccines is ‘largely made up’, having lower confidence in government, and lower perception of COVID-19 as a public health threat, were also associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The top three reasons for agreeing to vaccinate (November only) were to protect myself and others, moral responsibility, and having no reason not to get it. For those who were indifferent or disagreeing to vaccinate, safety concerns were the top reason, followed by indecision and lack of trust in the vaccine respectively.ConclusionsThese findings highlight some factors related to willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine prior to one being available in Australia. Now that the vaccine is being offered, this study identifies key issues that can inform public health messaging to address vaccine hesitancy.     

Disparities in national and state estimates of COVID-19 vaccination receipt and intent to vaccinate by race/ethnicity,income, and age group among adults ≥ 18 years,United States

IntroductionCOVID-19 morbidity and mortality has disproportionately affected vulnerable populations such as minority racial/ethnic groups. Understanding disparities in vaccine intentions and reasons for vaccine hesitancy are important for developing effective strategies for ameliorating racial/ethnic COVID-19 inequities.MethodsUsing six waves of the large, nationally representative Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey data from January 6-March 29, 2021 (n = 459,235), we examined national and state estimates for vaccination intent, defined as receipt of ≥ 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or definite intent to be vaccinated, by race/ethnicity with stratification by household income and age group. In separate logistic regression models, we also examined the interaction between race/ethnicity and household income, and race/ethnicity and age group, and its association with vaccination intent. Lastly, we examined reasons for not vaccinating by race/ethnicity.ResultsVaccination intent differed by racial/ethnic group, household income, and age group nationally and by Health and Human Services (HHS) region and state. A significant interaction was observed between race/ethnicity and household income (F(8,72) = 4.50, p < 0.001), and race/ethnicity and age group (F(8,72) = 15.66, p < 0.001). Non-Hispanic Black adults with lower income (<$35,000) and younger age (18–49 years) were least likely to intend to vaccinate. Similar disparities across racial/ethnic groups were seen across most HHS regions and states. Concerns about possible side effects and effectiveness were significantly higher among all minority groups compared to non-Hispanic White adults.ConclusionDisparities in vaccination intent by racial/ethnic groups underscore the need for interventions and recommendations designed to improve vaccination coverage and confidence in underserved communities, such as younger and lower income racial/ethnic minority groups. Efforts to reduce disparities and barriers to vaccination are needed to achieve equity in vaccination coverage, and ultimately, to curb COVID-19 transmission.     

COVID-19 and missed or delayed vaccination in 26 middle- and high-income countries: An observational survey

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted vaccination services and raised the risk of a global resurgence of preventable diseases. We assessed the extent of and reasons for missed or delayed vaccinations (hereafter ‘missed’) in middle- and high-income countries in the early months of the pandemic.MethodsFrom May to June 2020, participants completed an online survey on missed vaccination. Analyses separated missed childhood and adult vaccination in middle-and high-income countries.ResultsRespondents were 28,429 adults from 26 middle- and high-income countries. Overall, 9% of households had missed a vaccine, and 13% were unsure. More households in middle- than high-income countries reported missed childhood vaccination (7.6% vs. 3.0%) and missed adult vaccination (9.6% vs. 3.4%, both p < .05). Correlates of missed childhood vaccination in middle-income countries included COVID-19 risk factors (respiratory and cardiovascular diseases), younger age, male sex, employment, psychological distress, larger household size, and more children. In high-income countries, correlates of missed childhood vaccination also included immunosuppressive conditions, but did not include sex or household size. Fewer correlates were associated with missed adult vaccination other than COVID-19 risk factors and psychological distress. Common reasons for missed vaccinations were worry about getting COVID-19 at the vaccination clinic (15%) or when leaving the house (11%). Other reasons included no healthcare provider recommendation, clinic closure, and wanting to save services for others.InterpretationMissed vaccination was common and more prevalent in middle- than high-income countries. Missed vaccination could be mitigated by emphasizing COVID-19 safety measures in vaccination clinics, ensuring free and accessible immunization, and clear healthcare provider recommendations.     

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and uptake in a national prospective cohort of essential workers

IntroductionIn a multi-center prospective cohort of essential workers, we assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) by vaccine intention, prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and occupation, and their impact on vaccine uptake over time.MethodsInitiated in July 2020, the HEROES-RECOVER cohort provided socio-demographics and COVID-19 vaccination data. Using two follow-up surveys approximately three months apart, COVID-19 vaccine KAP, intention, and receipt was collected; the first survey categorized participants as reluctant, reachable, or endorser.ResultsA total of 4,803 participants were included in the analysis. Most (70%) were vaccine endorsers, 16% were reachable, and 14% were reluctant. By May 2021, 77% had received at least one vaccine dose. KAP responses strongly predicted vaccine uptake, particularly positive attitudes about safety (aOR = 5.46, 95% CI: 1.4–20.8) and effectiveness (aOR = 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.1). Participants’ with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 22% less likely to believe the COVID-19 vaccine was effective compared with uninfected participants (aOR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.96). This was even more pronounced in first responders compared with other occupations, with first responders 42% less likely to believe in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.84). Between administrations of the two surveys, 25% of reluctant, 56% reachable, and 83% of endorser groups received the COVID-19 vaccine. The reachable group had large increases in positive responses for questions about vaccine safety (10% of vaccinated, 34% of unvaccinated), and vaccine effectiveness (12% of vaccinated, 27% of unvaccinated).DiscussionOur study demonstrates attitudes associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake and a positive shift in attitudes over time. First responders, despite potential high exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and participants with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were more vaccine reluctant.ConclusionsPerceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine can shift over time. Targeting messages about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and illness severity may increase vaccine uptake for reluctant and reachable participants.     

Experiences,risk perceptions,and COVID-19 vaccination outcomes among hospital workers

BackgroundAlthough COVID-19 vaccinations have been available to hospital workers in the U.S. since December 2020, coverage is far from universal, even in groups with patient contact. The aim of this study was to describe COVID-19-related experiences at work and in the personal lives of nurses, allied health workers, and non-clinical staff with patient contact, and to assess whether these experiences relate to COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsHealth care workers at a large Midwestern hospital in the U.S. were contacted to participate in an online cross-sectional survey during February 2021. A logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for vaccination by different experiences, and we assessed mediation through models that also included measures of risk perceptions.ResultsAmong 366 nurse practitioners / nurse midwives / physician assistant, 1,698 nurses, 1,798 allied health professionals, and 1,307 non-clinical staff with patient contact, the proportions who had received or intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccination were 94 %, 87 %, 82 %, and 88 %, respectively. Working and being physically close to COVID-19 patients was not significantly associated with vaccine intent. Vaccination intent was significantly lower among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis vs not (OR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.27, 0.40) and higher for those who knew close family members of friends hospitalized or died of COVID-19 (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.10, 1.60).ConclusionEven when COVID-19 vaccination was available in February 2021, a substantial minority of hospital workers with patient contact did not intend to be vaccinated. Moreover, their experiences working close to COVID-19 patients were not significantly related to vaccination intent. Instead, personal experiences with family members and friends were associated with vaccination intent through changes in risk perceptions. Interventions to increase uptake among hospital workers should emphasize protection of close family members or friends and the severity of COVID-19.     

The effect of immunization with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) and/or SARS-CoV-2 infection on antibody levels,plasmablasts, long-lived-plasma-cells,and IFN-γ release by natural killer cells

ObjectivesWe evaluated the antibody response, natural killer cell response and B cell phenotypes in healthcare workers (HCW) who are vaccinated with two doses of CoronaVac with or without documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and unvaccinated HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsHCWs were divided into four groups: vaccine only (VO), vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection (VAI), SARS-CoV-2 infection only (IO), and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccine (IAV). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (Anti-S) antibodies were measured by Elecsys Anti–SARS–CoV–2 S ELISA kit. Memory B cells (CD19⁺CD27⁺), plasmablast B cells (CD19⁺CD138⁺) and long-lived plasma cells (LLPC; CD138⁺CD19^-) were measured by flow cytometry in 74 patients. Interferon gamma (IFN-γ) release by natural killer (NK) cells were measured by NKVue Test (NKMAX, Republic of Korea) in 76 patients. RT-PCR was performed with Bio-speedy® COVID-19 qPCR detection kit, Version 2 (Bioexen LTD, Istanbul, Turkey).ResultsThe Anti-S antibodies were detectable in all HCWs (n: 224). The median Anti-S titers (BAU/mL) was significantly higher in VAI (620 25–75% 373–1341) compared to VO (136, 25–75% 85–283) and IO (111, 25–75% 54–413, p < 0.01). VAI group had significantly lower percentage of plasmablasts (2.9; 0–8.7) compared to VO (6.8; 3.5–12.0) and IO (9.9; 4.7–47.5, p < 0.01) (n:74). Percentage of LLPCs in groups VO, VAI and IO was similar. There was no difference of IFN-γ levels between the study groups (n: 76).ConclusionThe antibody response was similar between uninfected vaccinated HCWs and unvaccinated HCWs who had natural infection. HCWs who had two doses of CoronaVac either before or after the natural SARS-CoV-2 infection elicited significantly higher antibody responses compared to uninfected vaccinated HCWs. The lower percentages of plasmablasts in the VAI group may indicate their migration to lymph nodes and initiation of the germinal center reaction phase. IFN-γ response did not differ among the groups.     

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions in New York State's intellectual and developmental disabilities community

BackgroundPeople with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are at disproportionate risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, particularly those living in congregate care settings. Yet, there is limited data on vaccine perceptions in the disability community.ObjectiveTo explore COVID-19 vaccine perceptions in individuals with IDD, their family members, and those who work with them, to inform a statewide vaccine information and messaging project.MethodsA national survey, adapted in five languages for the IDD community, was distributed to a convenience sample of IDD organizations throughout New York State. Constructs included vaccine intention, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and trusted sources of vaccine information. Zip code data were used to map respondent location and vaccine preferences.ResultsOf n = 825 respondents, approximately 75% intended to or had received the vaccine across roles (i.e., people with developmental disabilities, family members, direct care workers) and racial/ethnic groups. Greater vaccine hesitancy was reported in younger individuals and those making decisions on behalf of a person with IDD. Concerns included side effects and the swiftness of vaccine development. Black and Hispanic participants had heightened concerns about being an “experiment” for the vaccine. Trusted sources of information included healthcare providers and family members. Respondents who intended to/received the vaccine were dispersed throughout the state.ConclusionsVaccine preferences in this New York State disability community sample align with national data. Identified concerns suggest the need for community education that addresses misperceptions. Age and race differences in perspectives highlight the need for tailored education, delivered by trusted messengers.     

Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated?

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Several prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19 are currently in development, yet little is known about people’s acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsWe conducted an online survey of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n = 2,006) in May 2020. Multivariable relative risk regression identified correlates of participants’ willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., vaccine acceptability).ResultsOverall, 69% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination (RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.49–2.02) or if they were moderate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.16) or liberal (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07–1.22) in their political leaning. Participants were also more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived likelihood getting a COVID-19 infection in the future (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.09), perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04–1.11), or perceived effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.40–1.52). Participants were less likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they were non-Latinx black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74–0.90) or reported a higher level of perceived potential vaccine harms (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.98).ConclusionsMany adults are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, though acceptability should be monitored as vaccine development continues. Our findings can help guide future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (and uptake if a vaccine becomes available).     

Waning effectiveness of CoronaVac in real life: A retrospective cohort study in health care workers

BackgroundReal-world studies showed varying levels of effectiveness of CoronaVac vaccine against COVID-19 disease. This study aimed to assess the association between the vaccination with CoronaVac and the COVID-19 infections among the health care workers in a university hospital and to determine the vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 in a period when alpha variant was dominant.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in a university hospital in Istanbul, Turkey employs 4067 health care workers. The follow-up period was defined as starting 14 days after receiving the second dose for fully vaccinated group. Health care workers were censored when have a positive PCR test result or at the end of the study. Unvaccinated health care workers were censored if they receive any COVID-19 vaccine doses. The incidence rate ratio and Cox regression were used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted effectiveness of the vaccine.Findings: Seventy-one percent of the health care workers were fully vaccinated whereas 29% percent did not receive any doses. The incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 133.7 vs 70.7 per 100.000 person-days in the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated groups, respectively. The unadjusted effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was 47% (95% CI 31–59%) whereas adjusted effectiveness was 39% (95% CI 20–64%).Interpretation: This real life study conducted in health care workers demonstrated that the effectiveness of two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine (39%) was lower than that determined in clinical trials. Due to reduce in protection over time or against variants, booster doses may be needed.