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).     

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.     

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

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

COVID-19 vaccine confidence and reasons for vaccination among health care workers and household members

BackgroundThe majority of healthcare workers (HCW) in the US report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, yet little is known about vaccine decision-making for their household members, including children.MethodsCross-sectional survey July–August 2021 of HCW and their household members in Minnesota.Results94 % of eligible participants were vaccinated with the most common reasons being wanting to protect oneself, family and loved ones. Safety concerns were the most commonly reported reasons for not being vaccinated; a significantly higher proportion of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated HCW (58 % vs 12 %, p = 0.0035) and household adults (25 % vs 5 %, p = 0.03) reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nearly half of unvaccinated adults and two-thirds of unvaccinated children would be vaccinated if a vaccine mandate were in place.ConclusionsDespite high COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among HCWs, more research is required to identify and address the needs and concerns of healthcare workers who decline COVID-19 vaccination despite availability.     

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.     

Predicting COVID-19 vaccination intention using protection motivation theory and conspiracy beliefs

BackgroundWhile COVID-19 vaccine uptake has been encouraging overall, some individuals are either hesitant towards, or refuse, the vaccine. Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) has been applied to influenza vaccine acceptance, but there is a lack of research applying PMT to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Additionally, prior research has suggested that coronavirus conspiracy beliefs and demographic factors may play a role in attitudes towards the vaccine. This study aimed to predict COVID-19 vaccination intention using PMT, coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, and demographic factors. Furthermore, vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were compared in relation to their coronavirus conspiracy beliefs.MethodsAn online survey was administered to 382 (278 vaccinated, and 104 unvaccinated) individuals in the United Kingdom (77 males, 301 females, one non-binary/third gender, and three unstated). Respondents’ mean age was 43.78 (SD = 12.58).ResultsA hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed in three stages. Initially, four PMT constructs - severity, susceptibility, maladaptive response costs, and self-efficacy - emerged as significant predictors of COVID-19 vaccination intention. The final model accounted for 75% of the variance and retained two significant predictors from PMT - maladaptive response rewards and self-efficacy - alongside coronavirus conspiracy beliefs and age. An independent t-test established that unvaccinated individuals held greater coronavirus conspiracy beliefs than vaccinated ones.ConclusionsInterventions and campaigns addressing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance should employ strategies increasing individuals’ perceived severity of COVID-19, perceived susceptibility, and perceived ability to get vaccinated, while decreasing perceived rewards of not getting vaccinated. Additionally, coronavirus conspiracy beliefs should be addressed, as these appear to play a role for some vaccine-hesitant individuals.     

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.     

Reminders of existing vaccine mandates increase support for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate: Evidence from a survey experiment

BackgroundGovernments are trying various strategies to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates, including vaccine mandates. Popular support for such mandates, however, is in flux in many countries, including the United States. The objective of this study is to evaluate if the wording of public health messages could increase popular support for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.MethodsWe conducted a survey experiment on a sample of 573 registered voters in South Dakota, United States. Participants in the control group (n = 271) read a short message about mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Respondents in the treatment group (n = 278) read the same message but they were reminded that a variety of vaccine mandates for measles, mumps, rubella, and polio have long been required. Afterwards, both groups were asked about their support for COVID-19 vaccine mandate.ResultsA multivariate ordinary least squares regression analysis revealed that the experimental treatment had a positive and statistically significant impact on support for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (p < 0.001). We also found that COVID-19 vaccination status, religious identity, and political affiliation have a statistically significant effect.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a simple intervention—reminding the public of the existing vaccine mandates—increases support for COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Public health authorities who seek to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates could utilize this approach.     

Tolerance of BNT162b2 mRNA COVI-19 vaccine in patients with a medical history of COVID-19 disease: A case control study

IntroductionStudies evaluating BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety excluded subjects with a previous history of COVID-19 infection. The aim of our study was to focus on the tolerance of this vaccine this population.MethodsAn anonymous self-reporting survey related to safety and tolerance of vaccine was completed by subjects 21 to 28 days after the first vaccine dose in two vaccination centers.ResultsSubjects with prior COVID-19 disease history (n = 61) had higher systemic reactions than subjects without any previous history (n = 1987) (45.9% vs 29.7%, p = 0.01). Asthenia, headache and fever were significantly more frequent in COVID-19 + group than negative group (25.6% vs 15.2% p = 0.045, 19.7% vs 9.3% p = 0.01, 6.5% vs 0.9% p = 0.003 respectively). Grade of severity was higher in COVID-19 + than in COVID-19 - group (p = 0.03).ConclusionOur study confirms a higher risk of side effects in patients with preexisting SARS-CoV-2 disease but with a good overall tolerance.     

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

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

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

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

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.     

Social inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake for children and adolescents in Montreal,Canada

BackgroundThe success of current and prospective COVID-19 vaccine campaigns for children and adolescents will in part depend on the willingness of parents to accept vaccination. This study examined social determinants of parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake for children and adolescents.MethodsWe used cross-sectional data from an ongoing COVID-19 cohort study in Montreal, Canada and included all parents of 2 to 18-year-olds who completed an online questionnaire between May 18 and June 26, 2021 (n = 809). We calculated child age-adjusted prevalence estimates of vaccine acceptance by parental education, race/ethnicity, birthplace, household income, and neighbourhood, and used multinomial logistic regression to estimate adjusted prevalence differences (aPD) and ratios (aPR). Social determinants of vaccine uptake were examined for the vaccine-eligible sample of 12 to 18 year-olds (n = 306).ResultsIntention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was high, with only 12.4% of parents unlikely to have their child vaccinated. Parents with younger children were less likely to accept vaccination, as were those from lower-income households, racialized groups, and those born outside Canada. Children from households with annual incomes <$100,000 had 18.4 percent lower prevalence of being vaccinated/very likely vaccinated compared to household incomes ≥$150,000 (95% CI: 10.1 to 26.7). Racialized parents reported greater unwillingness to vaccinate vs. White parents (aPD = 10.3; 95% CI: 1.5, 19.1). Vaccine-eligible adolescents from the most deprived neighbourhood were half as likely to be vaccinated compared to those from the least deprived neighbourhood (aPR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.77).Interpretation.This study identified marked social inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake for children and adolescents. Efforts are needed to reach disadvantaged and marginalized populations with tailored strategies that promote informed decision making and facilitate access to vaccination.     

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and hesitancy amongst parents of school-aged children during the pediatric vaccine rollout

BackgroundThe United States has the highest number of total cases and deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide (Johns Hopkins COVID Dashboard, 2021). Despite COVID-19 vaccine availability, uptake in the United States has been slow and vaccine hesitancy has been a significant barrier to achieving widespread vaccine uptake. Understanding determinants of vaccine acceptance is essential to implement successful population health interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe developed an anonymous cross-sectional parent survey to assess factors associated with parent and child COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy during the initial pediatric vaccine rollout amongst adolescents 16 years +. The survey was sent via email to 25,308 parents registered to the Alachua County Public School System in May 2021 and remained active until July 2021.FindingsThere were a total of 2,620 survey responses. Overall, 31.5 % of parents with children ages 16 years + reported their child had received the COVID-19 vaccine, 65.2 % reported their (eligible) child had not received the vaccine, and 3.3 % reported their child was scheduled for the vaccine. A majority of parents (60.9 %) reported they planned to vaccinate all of their children once the COVID-19 vaccine was available for their children’s age. COVID-19 vaccine uptake in adolescents ages 16 + reported by Hispanic and White parents was two times higher than that reported by Black parents. Parent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake were associated with increased child COVID-19 vaccination. The most commonly reported reasons why parents chose not to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 were concerns about long–term negative side effects (75.7 %) and a negative reaction (56.5 %). Medical providers were reported as the most trusted source of information.ConclusionOur study provides insight into determinants of vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, and trusted sources of information that may be helpful to develop targeted interventions to increase youth COVID-19 vaccination.     

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.     

Where are children ages 5–17 years receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations? Variations over time and by sociodemographic characteristics,United States

BackgroundKnowing the settings where children ages 5–17 years received COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, and how settings changed over time and varied by socio-demographics, is of interest for planning and implementing vaccination programs.MethodsData from the National Immunization Survey-Child COVID-19 Module (NIS-CCM) were analyzed to assess place of COVID-19 vaccination among vaccinated children ages 5–17 years. Interviews from July 2021 thru May 2022 were included in the analyses for a total of n = 39,286 vaccinated children. The percentage of children receiving their COVID-19 vaccine at each type of setting was calculated overall, by sociodemographic characteristics, and by month of receipt of COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsAmong vaccinated children ages 5–11 years, 46.9 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 37.1 % at a pharmacy, 8.1 % at a school, 4.7 % at a mass vaccination site, and 3.2 % at some other non-medical place. Among vaccinated children ages 12–17 years, 35.1 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 47.9 % at a pharmacy, 8.3 % at a mass vaccination site, 4.8 % at a school, and 4.0 % at some other non-medical place. The place varied by time among children ages 12–17 years but minimally for children ages 5–11 years. There was variability in the place of COVID-19 vaccination by age, race/ethnicity, health insurance, urbanicity, and region.ConclusionChildren ages 5–17 years predominantly received their COVID-19 vaccinations at pharmacies and medical places. The large proportion of vaccinated children receiving vaccination at pharmacies is indicative of the success in the United States of expanding the available settings where children could be vaccinated. Medical places continue to play a large role in vaccinating children, especially younger children, and should continue to stock COVID-19 vaccine to keep it available for those who are not yet vaccinated, including the newly recommended group of children < 5 years.     

Does a major change to a COVID-19 vaccine program alter vaccine intention? A qualitative investigation

BackgroundOn 8th April 2021, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) made the Pfizer-BioNtech (Comirnaty) vaccine the “preferred” vaccine for adults in Australia aged < 50 years due to a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following AstraZeneca vaccination. We sought to understand whether this impacted COVID-19 vaccine intentions.MethodWe undertook qualitative interviews from February – April 2021 before and after the program change with 28 adults in Perth, Western Australia. Using our COVID-19 vaccine intentions model, we assessed changes in participants’ COVID-19 vaccine intention before and after the program change. Participants were classified as 1) ‘acceptors’: no concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, access and would accept whatever vaccine is offered, 2) ‘cautious acceptors’: some concerns and would prefer a particular vaccine brand but would accept whatever is offered, 3) ‘Wait awhile’: for more data, easier access, for another vaccine brand, a greater perceived COVID-19 threat or until mandatory, or 4) ‘refuser’: no intention to vaccinate due to concerns about safety and/or efficacy.ResultsBefore the change, 7/18 of those aged < 50 years were ‘acceptors,’ 10/18 were ‘cautious acceptors’ and 1/18 was ‘wait awhile.’ Overall, 14/18 participants had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention after the change; 4/18 became more concerned. For those aged ≥ 50 years and before the change, 5/10 were ‘acceptors’ and 5/10 were ‘cautious acceptors.’ After the change, 8/10 still had the same COVID-19 vaccine intention; 2/10 became more cautious. The major concern before the program change was COVID-19 vaccines having different vaccine efficacy; the concern pivoted to safety.ConclusionThe majority of participants were ‘cautious acceptors’ who intended on being vaccinated; many had this intention before and after the program change. The Australian government, health care providers and media need to better address COVID-19 vaccine concerns to assist those with COVID-19 vaccine intentions receive a vaccine.