Intention to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial and to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France during the pandemic

IntroductionThe world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. The development of a vaccine is challenging. We aimed to determine the proportion of people who intend to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France or to participate in a vaccine clinical trial.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous on-line survey from the 26th of March to the 20th of April 2020. Primary endpoints were the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine was available or participate in a vaccine clinical trial.ResultsThree thousand two hundred and fifty nine individuals answered the survey; women accounted for 67.4% of the respondents. According to their statements, 2.512 participants (77.6%, 95% CI 76.2–79%) will certainly or probably agree to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Older age, male gender, fear about COVID-19, being a healthcare worker and individual perceived risk were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. One thousand and five hundred and fifty respondents (47.6% 95% CI 45.9–49.3%) will certainly or probably agree to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Older age, male gender, being a healthcare worker and individual perceived risk were associated with potential acceptance to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with refusal for participation in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.ConclusionsNearly 75% and 48% of the survey respondents were respectively likely to accept vaccination or participation in a clinical trial against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy will be the major barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.     

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.     

Trust in government,intention to vaccinate and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A comparative survey of five large cities in the United States,United Kingdom,and Australia

BackgroundThere is widespread hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia.ObjectiveTo identify predictors of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in five cities with varying COVID-19 incidence in the US, UK, and Australia.DesignOnline, cross-sectional survey of adults from Dynata’s research panel in July-September 2020.Participants, settingAdults aged 18 and over in Sydney, Melbourne, London, New York City, or Phoenix.Main outcomes and measuresWillingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine; reason for vaccine intention.Statistical methodsTo identify predictors of intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, we used Poisson regression with robust error estimation to produce prevalence ratios.ResultsThe proportion willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was 70% in London, 71% NYC, 72% in Sydney, 76% in Phoenix, and 78% in Melbourne. Age was the only sociodemographic characteristic that predicted willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in all five cities. In Sydney and Melbourne, participants with high confidence in their current government had greater willingness to receive the vaccine (PR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.07–1.44 and PR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.74–1.62), while participants with high confidence in their current government in NYC and Phoenix were less likely to be willing to receive the vaccine (PR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.72–0.85 and PR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.76–0.96).LimitationsConsumer panels can be subject to bias and may not be representative of the general population.ConclusionsSuccess for COVID-19 vaccination programs requires high levels of vaccine acceptance. Our data suggests more than 25% of adults may not be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but many of them were not explicitly anti-vaccination and thus may become more willing to vaccinate over time. Among the three countries surveyed, there appears to be cultural differences, political influences, and differing experiences with COVID-19 that may affect willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.     

Association of Sources of COVID-19 Information with Vaccine Uptake,Preventive Behaviors,and Perceived Severity of COVID-19

ObjectiveTo investigate the association of using informal sources and reliance on multiple sources of information with actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake, the number of doses of vaccine received, COVID-19 testing, essential preventive measures, and perceived severity of COVID-19.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsOur study sample consisted of 9584 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, representing a weighted 50,029,030 beneficiaries from the Winter 2021 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Supplement.MethodsTwo key independent variables were whether a respondent relied on a formal source (ie, traditional news, government guidance, or health care providers) or an informal source (ie, social media, Internet, or friends/family) the most for the COVID-19 information and the total number of information sources a respondent relied on.ResultsCompared with beneficiaries relying on formal sources of information, those relying on informal sources of information were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56–0.75) and COVID-19 testing (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74–0.98), to engage in preventive behaviors (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50–0.74), to have high perception of COVID-19 severity, and were more likely to be unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.41–1.91). Relying on more information sources was significantly associated with higher odds of actual vaccine uptake (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17–1.26), COVID-19 testing (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07–1.15), engagement of essential preventive behaviors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.25–1.42), having high perception of COVID-19 severity, and with lower likelihood of being unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (RRR, 0.82; 0.79–0.85).Conclusions and ImplicationsThe COVID-19 pandemic has made communicating information about coronavirus more important than ever. Our findings suggest that information from formal sources with expertise and more balanced sources of information were key to effective communication to prevent from COVID-19 infection among older adults.     

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among people living with HIV in a low-resource setting: A multi-center study of prevalence,correlates and reasons

BackgroundHesitancy to COVID-19 vaccine may worsen the burden of COVID-19 among people living with HIV (PLHIV), who are at a higher risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, compared to HIV non-infected individuals. Therefore, we evaluate the predictors and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated PLHIV in six antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinics across northern Nigeria.MethodologyIn this cross-sectional study, conducted between October 2021 and February 2022 in six hospitals across two geopolitical regions of Nigeria, we utilized interviewer-administered questionnaires to assess COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among a convenience sample of 790 eligible adult PLHIV. Hesitancy was defined as answering ‘no' or ‘maybe’ to a question asking participants their willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among PLHIV.ResultsOf the total 660 unvaccinated participants included in the analysis (61.82% female, mean age [SD] of 39.76 [10.75]), 381 (57.72%) were hesitant to COVID-19 vaccine. Being 50 years and older (aOR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.21–0.89), being unemployed (aOR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.34–0.95), experiencing the adverse effects of ART (aOR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15–0.86), and perception of being at high risk of contracting COVID-19 (aOR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13–0.37) were associated with significantly lower odds of hesitancy. Conversely, being female (aOR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.02–2.61) and attending ART clinics at state administrative capital cities (IIDH Kano [aOR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.10–5.25], MMSH Kano [aOR: 5.59; 95% CI: 1.97–10.66], YSSH Damaturu [aOR: 9.88; 95% CI: 4.02–24.29] vs. GH Gashua) were associated with significantly higher odds of hesitancy. The most common reasons for hesitancy include fear of potential adverse effects, skepticism about vaccine efficacy, the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine, and the perceived lack of effort to develop a cure or vaccine for HIV/AIDS.ConclusionInterventions aimed at combating misperceptions and misinformation regarding the COVID-19 vaccination program may reduce the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated PLHIV.     

Association between social vulnerability and COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and vaccination in pregnant and postpartum individuals

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of community-level social vulnerability with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination among pregnant and postpartum individuals.MethodsProspective cohort study assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals. We performed a baseline survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from 03/22/21 to 04/02/21, and a follow-up survey on COVD-19 vaccination status 3- to 6-months later. The primary exposure was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SVI (Social Vulnerability Index), measured in quartiles. Higher SVI quartiles indicated greater community-level social vulnerability with the lowest quartile (quartile 1) as the referent group. The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey (uncertainty or refusal of the vaccine), and the secondary outcome was self-report of not being vaccinated (unvaccinated) for COVID-19 on the follow-up survey.ResultsOf 456 assessed individuals, 46% reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on the baseline survey; and of 290 individuals (290/456, 64%) who completed the follow-up survey, 48% (140/290) were unvaccinated. The frequency of baseline vaccine hesitancy ranged from 25% in quartile 1 (low SVI) to 68% in quartile 4 (high SVI), and being unvaccinated at follow-up ranged from 29% in quartile 1 to 77% in quartile 4. As social vulnerability increased, the risk of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy at baseline increased (quartile 2 aRR (adjusted relative risk): 1.46; 95% CI:0.98 to 2.19; quartile 3 aRR: 1.86; 95% CI:1.28 to 2.71; and quartile 4 aRR: 2.24; 95% CI:1.56 to 3.21), as did the risk of being unvaccinated at follow-up (quartile 2 aRR: 1.00; 95% CI:0.66 to 1.51; quartile 3 aRR: 1.68; 95% CI:1.17 to 2.41; and quartile 4 aRR: 1.82; 95% CI:1.30 to 2.56).ConclusionsPregnant and postpartum individuals living in an area with higher community-level social vulnerability were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and subsequently to be unvaccinated at follow-up.     

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).     

Individual-level factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among U.S. patients with cancer

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health concern in the US. Cancer patients are especially vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and require targeted prevention efforts against COVID-19.MethodsWe used longitudinal survey data from patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center to identify attitudes, beliefs, and sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among cancer patients. Patients with confirmed invasive cancer diagnosis through Cancer Registry data were asked about vaccine acceptance through the question “Now that a COVID-19 vaccine is available, are you likely to get it?” and dichotomized into high accepters (already received it, would get it when available) and low accepters (waiting for a doctor to recommend it, waiting until more people received it, not likely to get it).ResultsMost patients (86.8% of 5,814) were high accepters of the COVID-19 vaccine. High accepters had more confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine than low accepters. Multivariable logistic regression showed older individuals (70–89 vs.18–49: OR:2.57, 95% CI:1.33–4.86), those with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (very serious vs. not at all serious: OR:2.55, 95% CI:1.76–3.70), practicing more risk mitigation behaviors (per one standard deviation OR:1.75, 95% CI:1.57–1.95), and history of receiving the flu shot versus not (OR:6.56, 95% CI:5.25–8.20) had higher odds of vaccine acceptance. Individuals living with more than one other person (vs. alone: OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.79) and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged (per 10 percentile points: OR: 0.89, 95 %CI: 0.85, 0.93) had lower odds of reporting vaccine acceptance.ConclusionMost patients with cancer have or would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are less likely to accept the vaccine have more concerns regarding effectiveness and side effects, are younger, more socioeconomically disadvantaged, and have lower perceptions of COVID-19 severity.     

Let's talk about COVID-19 vaccination: Relevance of conversations about COVID-19 vaccination and information sources on vaccination intention in Switzerland

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is known to be more pronounced among young people. However, there are a lack of studies examining determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention in the general population in this young age-group in Switzerland, and in particular, studies investigating the influence of information sources and social networks on vaccination intention are missing.MethodsThe cross-sectional study “COVIDisc – Discussion with young people about the corona pandemic” provided the opportunity to investigate COVID-19 vaccination intention in 893 individuals aged 15–34 years from the cantons of Zurich, Thurgau, and Ticino in Switzerland. An online survey was administered between 10 November 2020 and 5 January 2021. Associations of public information sources and conversations about COVID-19 with COVID-19 vaccination intention were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression and mediation analysis using generalized structural equation modeling.Results51.5% of the participants intended or probably intended to get vaccinated once the vaccine would be available. Using print or online news (AOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09–2.07) as an information source and having conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR 2.09, 95% CI 1.52–2.87) increased participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention. The effects of female gender (b = −0.267, p = 0.039) and risk perception (b = 0.163, p = 0.028) were partially mediated by having conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine. The effects of age (b = −0.036, p = 0.016), secondary educational level (b = 0.541, p = 0.010) and tertiary educational level (b = 0.726, p = 0.006) were fully mediated via having conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionsConversations and campaigns should start even before vaccines become available. Our data support interventions for young women and less educated people using social norms and supporting information seeking with news. Trust and risk perceptions are essential foundations for vaccine intentions.     

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

IntroductionIn 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.MethodsSecondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest.ResultsPfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI ?0.4 to 20.6 and ?3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI ?3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).DiscussionThe excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.     

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and intention during pregnancy in Canada

ObjectiveTo investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake and intent among pregnant people in Canada, and determine associated factors.MethodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey among pregnant people from May 28 through June 7, 2021 (n = 193). Respondents completed a questionnaire to determine COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (defined as either received or intend to receive a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy), factors associated with vaccine acceptance, and rationale for accepting/not accepting the vaccine.ResultsOf 193 respondents, 57.5% (n = 111) reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Among those who did not accept the vaccine, concern over vaccine safety was the most commonly cited reason (90.1%, n = 73), and 81.7% (n = 67) disagreed with receiving a vaccine that had not been tested in pregnant people. Confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety (aOR 16.72, 95% CI: 7.22, 42.39), Indigenous self-identification (aOR 11.59, 95% CI: 1.77, 117.18), and employment in an occupation at high risk for COVID-19 exposure excluding healthcare (aOR 4.76, 95% CI: 1.32, 18.60) were associated with vaccine acceptance. Perceived personal risk of COVID-19 disease was not associated with vaccine acceptance in the multivariate model.ConclusionVaccine safety is a primary concern for this population. Safety information should be communicated to this population as it emerges, along with clear messaging on the benefits of vaccination, as disease risk is either poorly understood or poorly valued in this population.     

Changes in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate among recovered critically Ill patients: A 12-month follow-up study

IntroductionWe surveyed a cohort of patients who recovered from severe SARS-CoV-2 infection to determine the COVID-19 vaccination rate. We also compared the willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccine before and after its availability to assess changes in perception and attitude towards vaccination.Materials and MethodsRecovered patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure from SARS-CoV-2 infection treated in the ICU at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were followed up over a 1-year period to assess vaccine acceptability and acceptance rates, and changes in perception towards COVID-19 vaccination before and after vaccine availability.ResultsA total of 98 and 93 patients completed the initial and follow up surveys respectively. During the initial survey, 41% of the patients intended to receive vaccination, 46% responded they would not accept a vaccine against COVID-19 even if it were proven to be ‘safe and effective ‘and 13% undecided. During the follow up survey, 44% of the study cohort had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Major reasons provided by respondents for not accepting COVID-19 vaccine were lack of trust in the effectiveness of the vaccine, pharmaceutical companies, government, vaccine technology, fear of side effects and perceived immunity against COVID-19. Respondents were more likely to be vaccinated if recommended by their physicians (OR 6.4, 95% CI 2.8–8.3), employers (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9–5.8), and family and friends (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–4.5).ConclusionWe found a suboptimal COVID-19 vaccination rate in a cohort of patients who recovered from severe infection. COVID-19 vaccine information and recommendation by healthcare providers, employers, and family and friends may improve vaccination uptake.     

Predictors of vaccine hesitancy among disability support workers in Australia: A cross-sectional survey

BackgroundAchieving high levels of vaccination among disability support workers (DSWs) is critical to protecting people with disability from COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases.ObjectiveTo identify how demographic factors, risk perceptions of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine, and views about COVID-19 vaccination are associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among DSWs.MethodsSurvey of 252 Australian DSWs conducted in March and early April 2021. Participants were classified as vaccine hesitant if they had not been vaccinated and would not have the vaccine when offered it. Logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounders.Results52.4% of DSWs were hesitant with females being more likely to be hesitant than males (58.2% female, 38.1% male). Hesitancy was more frequent among DSWs who were not worried about COVID-19 for themselves or their family (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.86, 95% CI 1.0–3.45); did not agree they were at more risk than the rest of the community (AOR 2.29, 95% 1.25–4.20); were concerned about vaccine safety (AOR 22.86, 95% CI 10.59–49.13) and were not confident the vaccine would protect them (AOR 6.06, 95% CI 3.21–11.41) or the clients from COVID-19 (AOR 6.03, 95% CI 3.19–11.41). DSWs who thought vaccination was a personal choice were more likely to be hesitant (82.1%) than those who thought it was a community responsibility (27.6%).ConclusionsThe study shows that increasing vaccination rates among DSWs requires targeted strategies that emphasise the seriousness of the infection; the potential for vaccines to reduce transmission; and vaccine safety and efficacy.     

A socio-ecological perspective on parents’ intentions to vaccinate their children against COVID-19

IntroductionVaccinating children against COVID-19 protects children's health and can mitigate the spread of the virus to other community members.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to use a socio-ecological perspective to identify multi-level factors associated with US parents’ intention to vaccinate their children.MethodsThis study used a longitudinal online cohort. Multinomial logistic regression models assessed socio-ecological predictors of negative and uncertain child COVID-19 vaccination intentions compared to positive intentions.ResultsIn June 2021, 297 parents were surveyed and 44% reported that they intended to vaccinate their children while 25% expressed uncertainty and 31% did not intend to vaccinate their children. The likelihood of reporting uncertain or negative intention, compared to positive intention to vaccinate their children was higher among parents who had not received a COVID-19 vaccination and those who did not have trusted information sources. Parents who talked to others at least weekly about the COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to endorse uncertain compared to positive vaccine intentions (aRRR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.20–0.93). A sub-analysis identified that parents had significantly higher odds of intending to vaccinate older children compared to younger children (children ages 16–17 years v. 0–4 years OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.05–3.84). An additional sub-analysis assessed the stability of parents’ intention to vaccinate their children between March 2021 and June 2021 (N=166). There was transition within each intention group between the study periods; however, symmetry and marginal homogeneity test results indicated that the shift was not statistically significant. Parents expressing uncertainty in March 2021 were the most likely to change their intention, with 24% transitioning to positive intention and 23% to negative intention in June 2021.ConclusionStudy findings suggest that programs to promote vaccination uptake should be dyadic and work to promote child and parent vaccination. Peer diffusion strategies may be particularly effective at promoting child vaccination uptake among parents expressing uncertainty.     

Anaphylaxis rates following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents: Analysis of data reported to EudraVigilance

AimThe present study aimed to estimate the anaphylaxis rates following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents in Europe.MethodsWe retrieved data on 371 anaphylaxis cases following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children ≤ 17 years old notified to EudraVigilance as of October 8, 2022. Overall, 27,120,512 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine and 1,400,300 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine have been delivered to children during the study period.ResultsThe overall mean anaphylaxis rate was 12.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.49–14.12] per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses [12.14 (95% CI: 6.37–17.91) per 10⁶ doses for mRNA-1273 and 12.84 (95% CI: 11.49–14.19) per 10⁶ doses for BNT162b2]. Children 12–17 years old accounted for 317 anaphylaxis cases, followed by 48 cases in children 3–11 years old, and 6 cases in children 0–2 years old. Children 10–17 years old had a mean anaphylaxis rate of 13.52 (95% CI: 12.03–15.00) cases per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses and children 5–9 years old had a mean anaphylaxis rate of 9.51 (95% CI: 6.82–12.20) cases per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses. There were two fatalities, both in the 12–17 years age group. The fatal anaphylaxis rate was 0.07 cases per 10⁶ mRNA vaccine doses.ConclusionsAnaphylaxis is a rare adverse event after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in children. Continuous surveillance of serious adverse events is needed to guide vaccination policies as we move towards SARS-CoV-2 endemicity. Larger real-world studies on COVID-19 vaccination in children, using clinical case confirmation, are imperative.     

Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults

IntroductionDecisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did.MethodsIn May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome.ResultsAmong participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23–2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88–2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49–2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36–0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45–2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15–1.90).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.     

Influenza vaccination uptake among Canadian adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal study on Aging (CLSA)

IntroductionUnderstanding how influenza vaccine uptake changed during the 2020/2021 influenza season compared to previous pre-pandemic seasons is a key priority, as is identifying the relationship between prior influenza vaccination and COVID-19 vaccine willingness.MethodsWe analyzed data from a large, nationally representative cohort of Canadian residents aged 50 and older to assess influenza vaccination status three times between 2015 and 2020. We investigated: 1) changes in self-reported influenza vaccine uptake, 2) predictors of influenza vaccine uptake in 2020/2021, and 3) the association between influenza vaccination history and self-reported COVID-19 vaccine willingness using logistic regression models.ResultsAmong 23,385 participants analyzed for aims 1–2, influenza vaccination increased over time: 14,114 (60.4%) in 2015–2018, 15,692 (67.1%) in 2019/2020, and 19,186 (82.0%; combining those already vaccinated and those planning to get a vaccine) in 2020/2021. After controlling for socio-demographics, history of influenza vaccination was most strongly associated with influenza vaccination in 2020/2021 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 147.9 [95% CI: 120.9–180.9]); this association remained after accounting for multiple health and pandemic-related factors (aOR 140.3 [95% CI: 114.5–171.8]). To a lesser degree, those more concerned about COVID-19 were also more likely to report influenza vaccination in fall 2020, whereas those reporting a very negative impact of the pandemic were less likely to get vaccinated. Among 23,819 participants with information on COVID-19 vaccine willingness during the last quarter of 2020 (aim 3), prior influenza vaccination was most strongly associated with willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 15.1 [95% CI: 13.5–16.8] for those who had received influenza vaccine at all previous timepoints versus none).ConclusionsOur analysis highlights the importance of previous vaccination in driving vaccination uptake and willingness. Efforts to increase vaccination coverage for influenza and COVID-19 should target individuals who do not routinely engage with immunization services regardless of demographic factors.     

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.     

Trends,patterns and psychological influences on COVID-19 vaccination intention: Findings from a large prospective community cohort study in England and Wales (Virus Watch)

BackgroundVaccination intention is key to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high in England and Wales compared to other countries, but vaccination rate disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern.MethodsOnline survey of prospective household community cohort study participants across England and Wales (Virus Watch). Vaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to ‘Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?’, collected in December 2020 and February 2021. Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected in January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences on vaccination intention.ResultsSurvey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14,880 adults reporting across both time points. In December 2020, 1,469 (10%) participants responded ‘No’ or ‘Unsure’. Of these people, 1,266 (86%) changed their mind and responded ‘Yes’ or ‘Already had a COVID-19 vaccine’ by February 2021. Vaccination intention increased across all ethnic groups and levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16–24-year-olds more likely to respond “Unsure” or “No” versus “Yes” than 65–74-year-olds in December 2020 (OR: 4.63, 95 %CI: 3.42, 6.27 & OR 7.17 95 %CI: 4.26, 12.07 respectively) and February 2021 (OR: 27.92 95 %CI: 13.79, 56.51 & OR 17.16 95 %CI: 4.12, 71.55). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention weakened, but did not disappear, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention.ConclusionsFour in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned to accept, or had already accepted, a vaccine.     

Early influenza vaccination rates decline in children during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundThis investigation sought to determine whether early season rates of pediatric influenza vaccination changed in a season when there was a concurrent COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis study used cohort and cross sectional data from an academic primary care division in Southcentral Pennsylvania that serves approximately 17,500 patients across 4 practice sites. Early season (prior to November 1) vaccination rates in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were recorded for children, age 6 months to 17 years. To explore the impact of COVID-19 on vaccination, we fit a model with a logit link (estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by patient over time) on calendar year, adjusted for race, ethnicity, age, and insurance type. We examined interaction effects of demographic covariates with calendar year.ResultsEarly vaccination rates were lower in 2020 (29.7%) compared with 2018 and 2019 (34.2% and 33.3%). After adjusting for covariates and accounting for clustering over time, the odds of early vaccination in 2020 were 19% lower compared to 2018 (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.78–0.85). In 2020, children with private insurance were more likely to receive early vaccination than in 2018 (OR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.04–1.15), whereas children with public insurance were less likely to receive early vaccination in 2020 than in 2018 (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 1.38–1.65).ConclusionsEarly influenza vaccination rates declined in a year with a concurrent COVID-19 pandemic. Modeling that accounts for individual trends and demographic variables identified specific populations with lower odds of early vaccination in 2020. Additional research is needed to investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic impacted parental intent to obtain the influenza vaccine, or introduced barriers to healthcare access.