Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Europe: A qualitative study

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are often referred to as the most trusted source of vaccine-related information for their patients. However, the evidence suggests that a number of HCWs are vaccine-hesitant. This study consists of 65 semi-structured interviews with vaccine providers in Croatia, France, Greece, and Romania to investigate concerns HCWs might have about vaccination. The results revealed that vaccine hesitancy is present in all four countries among vaccine providers. The most important concern across all countries was the fear of vaccine side effects. New vaccines were singled out due to perceived lack of testing for vaccine safety and efficacy. Furthermore, while high trust in health authorities was expressed by HCWs, there was also strong mistrust of pharmaceutical companies due to perceived financial interests and lack of communication about side effects. The notion that it is a doctor’s responsibility to respond to hesitant patients was reported in all countries. Concerns were also seen to be country- and context-specific. Strategies to improve confidence in vaccines should be adapted to the specific political, social, cultural and economic context of countries. Furthermore, while most interventions focus on education and improving information about vaccine safety, effectiveness, or the need for vaccines, concerns raised in this study identify other determinants of hesitancy that need addressing. The representativeness of the views of the interviewed HCWs must be interpreted with caution. This a qualitative study with a small sample size that included geographical areas where vaccination uptake was lower or where hesitancy was more prevalent and it reflects individual participants’ beliefs and attitudes toward the topic. As HCWs have the potential of influencing patient vaccination uptake, it is crucial to improve their confidence in vaccination and engage them in activities targeting vaccine hesitancy among their patients.     

Parental vaccine hesitancy and acceptance of seasonal influenza vaccine in the pediatric emergency department

BackgroundProviding influenza vaccine to patients in the pediatric emergency department (PED) is one strategy to increase childhood influenza vaccine uptake. The Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey is a new tool to identify vaccine-hesitant parents that may facilitate influenza vaccine uptake in the PED.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of administering the PACV modified for influenza vaccination in the PED setting and to determine whether parental PACV scores are associated with patient receipt of influenza vaccine in the PED.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in the PED of a tertiary pediatric hospital in Seattle, WA during the 2013–2014 influenza season. English-speaking parents of children aged 6 months to 7 years who were afebrile, medically stable to be discharged home from the PED, and had not already received an influenza vaccine this season were administered a modified version of the PACV. PACV scores (0–100, higher score = higher hesitancy) were dichotomized (<50 and ≥50) consistent with previous validation studies. Feasibility was assessed by determining time to complete the PACV. Our primary outcome was influenza vaccine refusal in the PED. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for association between vaccine refusal and dichotomized PACV scores.Results152 parent participants were included in the analysis. The median time for administering the PACV was 7 min. The median PACV score was 28, with 74% scoring <50. Parents who scored ≥50 on the PACV had increased odds of refusing the influenza vaccine compared to parents who scored <50 (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 6.58 [2.03–21.38]).ConclusionAdministration of the PACV in the PED is feasible, and higher PACV scores in this setting are associated with increased influenza vaccine refusal.     

Multi-domain narrative review of vaccine hesitancy in childhood

Vaccine hesitancy, where individuals delay or refuse some or all vaccines, is a perennial problem. It undermines the success of the immunisation programmes and places the society, especially vulnerable populations such as children, at risk of contracting infectious diseases. The phenomenon has been extensively analysed based on four aspects - confidence, complacency, convenience and costs. We suggest the alternative use of a multi-dimensional framework adapted from the “Generalist Wheel of Knowledge, Understanding and Inquiry” that was developed by Prof Larry Green and Kurt Stange, to assess the multiple facilitators and barriers towards vaccine hesitancy in childhood vaccination. The framework identifies domains in the healthcare system namely the child and parent/family, the clinician, the healthcare system and policy, and the infectious disease and corresponding vaccine that influence vaccine hesitancy. This narrative review includes literature beyond those covered by the World health Organisation Global Vaccine Action Plan (WHO GVAP). It identifies emotional distress, past negative experience and misconceptions that contribute to vaccine hesitancy in children and family, while attitude and motivation underpin vaccine hesitancy in clinicians. The healthcare system contributes to vaccine hesitancy when enforcements, diligent monitoring and transparency are absent or lacking. Inefficient dissemination of information about the disease and its associated vaccine as well as inadequate surveillance of misinformation add to vaccine hesitancy. The inter-domain factors highlight the roles of relationship between the clinician, child and parent, information mastery of the clinician, prioritisation of resources and equity in combating vaccine hesitancy. Using this framework, we present evidence-based strategies which have been effective in mitigating vaccine hesitancy for each domain and their corresponding inter-domains. By providing new perspectives of a complex problem and its potential solutions, this narrative review aims to complement and support the WHO GVAP by developing a coordinated multi-domain strategy to mitigate vaccine hesitancy in childhood.     

Assessing vaccine hesitancy in the UK population using a generalized vaccine hesitancy survey instrument

Background

In many regions of the world, vaccine hesitancy has become an important concern to public health. A key part of any effective solution to it is to gain an in-depth understanding of the problem: its scope, who holds hesitant views and for which reasons.

Prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in Hong Kong: A population-based survey

BackgroundAlthough vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the most desired solution to end the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there are growing concerns that vaccine hesitancy would undermine its potential. We examined the intention to receive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and the associated factors in a representative sample of Chinese adults in Hong Kong.MethodsWe did a dual-frame (landline and mobile) cross-sectional survey of a random sample of 1501 Hong Kong residents aged 18 years or older (53.6% females) in April 2020. We collected data on the intention to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when it becomes available (yes/ no/ undecided), knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19, smoking, alcohol drinking, and sociodemographic factors. Prevalence estimates were weighted by the sex, age, and education of the general population of Hong Kong.ResultsOverall, 45.3% (95% CI: 42.3–48.4%) of the participants had intentions to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 when it becomes available, 29.2% (26.5–32.1%) were undecided, and 25.5% (22.9–28.2%) had no intention. The most common reason for vaccine hesitancy (undecided or no intention) was safety concerns (56.5%). Multivariable partial proportional odds model showed higher vaccine hesitancy in males, younger adults, those with no chronic disease, current smokers, and non-alcohol drinkers. After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, inadequate knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (adjusted ORs ranged from 1.27 to 2.63; P < 0.05) and lower perceived danger of COVID-19 (adjusted ORs ranged from 1.62 to 2.47; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy.ConclusionsIn a representative sample of Chinese adults in Hong Kong, only 45.3% of the participants intended to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 when available. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with inadequate knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 transmission and lower perceived danger of COVID-19, which needed to be addressed to improve vaccination uptake.     

Antigen specific vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy

BackgroundVaccinations in pregnancy are recommended for the potential benefits of preventing severe pertussis disease in newborns and for preventing the impact of influenza on the pregnant woman, her foetus in utero and, the newborn in the first six months of life. Published data in Australia suggested that coverage rates were sub-optimal so the reasons for this were reviewed.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 1014 postnatal women, aged 18 years and older, who had given birth in the previous six months was undertaken on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia. Participants completed a brief questionnaire on provided smart tablets at public vaccination clinics or with a researcher by phone or via an on-line link.ResultsJust over 85% of survey respondents received a pertussis booster with many of those not receiving vaccine having had it in a recent pregnancy. Only 36.7% of respondents had an influenza vaccine in pregnancy with key barriers being belief in influenza vaccine, seasonality of parturition and a lack of recommendation from the attending obstetric carers.DiscussionWhile maternal pertussis vaccine programs are a success, work needs to be done to improve the public perception of the risk benefit equation surrounding influenza vaccine in general, and particularly its use in pregnancy. Research is required into approaches to altering practitioner attitudes as well as how to alter public perceptions.     

Impact of a decision-aid tool on influenza vaccine coverage among HCW in two French hospitals: A cluster-randomized trial

IntroductionNosocomial outbreaks of seasonal influenza are frequent, and vaccination is largely recommended for healthcare workers (HCWs). Vaccine coverage in French HCWs does not exceed 20%. Decision-aids (DA) are potential useful interventions to increase vaccine coverage (VC). Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a DA on HCWs influenza vaccine coverage.Material and methodsProspective cluster-randomized trial conducted in 83 departments in two public hospitals (a teaching and a non-teaching hospital) during the 2018–2019 flu season.Distribution of the DA and of questionnaire about decisional conflict and knowledge in the departments randomized in the intervention group.ResultsA total number of 3 547 HCWs were concerned by the study (1 953 in the intervention group, 1 594 in the control group). Global VC was 35.6% during the 2018–2019 season, instead of 23.6% in the 2017–2018 season (p < 0.005). During the 2018–2019 season, VC was 31% (95% CI 28.7–33.3) in the control group and 38.7% (95% CI 36.5–40.9) in the intervention group (p < 0.005). Among the 158 HCWs exposed to the DA who answered the survey, 51.3% had no decisional conflict. HCWs without decisional conflict were more prone to get vaccinated before flu season.ConclusionThe use of the DA was associated with a 25% relative increase in VC among HCWs against seasonal influenza. This modest increase remained far from the WHO 75% target, but may have reduced the number of nosocomial. Multi-component interventions are needed to increase VC in HCWs.     

Longitudinal change in depressive symptoms among healthcare professionals with and without COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from October 2020 to June 2021 in Japan

This study aimed to compare the longitudinal change in depressive symptoms among healthcare professionals in Japan who are willing to receive novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination and those who are unwilling to receive COVID-19 vaccination. The baseline survey was conducted in October 2020 (Survey time 1: T1); respondents in T1 were invited to participate in May 2021 (Survey time 2: T2). Depressive symptoms were assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Group comparisons of the estimated mean of PHQ-9 score at T1 and T2 were estimated by the analysis of covariance. In T1, 597 participants (response rate: 4.4%) completed all questions. In T2, 211 participants (follow up rate: 35.3%) completed all questions. The group and time interaction effect was significant (F(1, 207)=3.9, p=0.049); depressive symptoms were worse among healthcare professionals who were unwilling to receive vaccination than among those who were willing to receive vaccination. This study showed that depressive symptoms were worse among healthcare professionals who were unwilling to receive COVID-19 vaccination than those who are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccination. This suggests that it is important to take care of healthcare professionals who are unwilling to receive vaccination to prevent mental health deterioration.     

Motivating factors for high rates of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers

Background

Recent guidance from related regulatory agencies and medical societies supports mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) against influenza. At St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, a pediatric oncology referral center, more than 90% of HCWs receive vaccine each year without a policy mandating immunization. Factors associated with HCW uptake of influenza vaccines have not previously been evaluated in a high compliance rate setting.

Methods

A structured, anonymous, electronic questionnaire was distributed in August 2010 to employees (HCW and non-HCW). Demographics, prior receipt of influenza vaccines, reasons for acceptance or refusal of seasonal and 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine, and attitudes on mandatory vaccination were assessed.

Results

95.0% of 925 HCWs and 63.1% of all 3227 qualifying employees responded to the survey. 93.8% and 75.2% of HCW reported receiving seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively, in the 2009-2010 season. Benefits to self and/or patients were cited as the most frequent reasons for accepting seasonal (83.5% and 78.3%, respectively) and 2009 H1N1 (85.9% and 81.1%, respectively) vaccination. 36.6% of HCWs opposed mandating influenza vaccination; 88.2% and 59.9% of whom reported receiving the seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively. Violation of freedom of choice and personal autonomy were the most frequently reported reasons for opposition.

Conclusion

In this cohort of HCWs with a high influenza vaccination rate, realistic assessments of the potential benefits of vaccination appear to have driven the choice to accept immunization. Despite this, mandating vaccination was viewed unfavorably by a significant minority of vaccinated individuals. Employee concerns over autonomy should be addressed as institutions transition to mandatory vaccination policies.     

Associations between 5-year influenza vaccination and sociodemographic factors and healthcare access among Arkansans

Despite wide availability, only 50.2% of the United States (US) adult population and 50.3% of adult Arkansans were vaccinated for influenza during the 2020–2021 influenza season. The proportion of the population vaccinated for influenza varies by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, rural/urban residence, and income. However, measures of healthcare access have not been adequately investigated as predictors of influenza vaccination. Using a large, statewide random sample, this study examined 5-year influenza vaccination among Arkansans by sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, rural/urban residence), general vaccine hesitancy, and healthcare access (having a primary care provider, having health insurance, forgoing health care due to cost, and frequency of doctor checkups). Older age, being female, being Hispanic, having a bachelor’s degree or higher, having a primary care provider, visiting a doctor for a checkup in the past two years, and lack of hesitancy towards vaccines were significant predictors of receiving influenza vaccination.     

Factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers in 23 countries

BackgroundSeveral early COVID-19 studies aimed to assess the potential acceptance of a vaccine among healthcare providers, but relatively few studies of this population have been published since the vaccines became widely available. Vaccine safety, speed of development, and low perceived disease risk were commonly cited as factors for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this group.Purpose and methodsIn a secondary analysis based on a cross-sectional, structured survey, the authors aimed to assess the associations between self-reported vaccine hesitancy and a number of sociodemographic and COVID-19 vaccine perception factors using data from 3,295 healthcare providers (physicians, nurses, community health workers, other healthcare providers) in 23 countries.Findings494 (15.0%) of the participants reported vaccine hesitancy, of whom 132 (4.0%) would outright refuse to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Physicians were the least hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy was more likely to occur among those with less than the median income and, to a lesser degree, younger age. Safety and risk concerns and lack of trust that vaccines would be equitably distributed were strongly associated with hesitancy, less so were concerns about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.InterpretationFindings suggest a need to address safety and risk concerns through tailored messaging, training, and/or incentive approaches among healthcare providers, as well as the need for international and national vaccination efforts to ensure equitable distribution.     

Older adults' vaccine hesitancy: Psychosocial factors associated with influenza,pneumococcal, and shingles vaccine uptake

Influenza, pneumococcal disease, and shingles (herpes zoster) are more prevalent in older people. These illnesses are preventable via vaccination, but uptake is low and decreasing. Little research has focused on understanding the psychosocial reasons behind older adults’ hesitancy towards different vaccines. A cross-sectional survey with 372 UK-based adults aged 65–92 years (M = 70.5) assessed awareness and uptake of the influenza, pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines. Participants provided health and socio-demographic data and completed two scales measuring the psychosocial factors associated with vaccination behaviour. Self-reported daily functioning, cognitive difficulties, and social support were also assessed. Participants were additionally given the opportunity to provide free text responses outlining up to three main reasons for their vaccination decisions. We found that considerably more participants had received the influenza vaccine in the last 12 months (83.6%), relative to having ever received the pneumococcal (60.2%) and shingles vaccines (58.9%). Participants were more aware of their eligibility for the influenza vaccine, and were more likely to have been offered it. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that a lower sense of collective responsibility independently predicted lack of uptake of all three vaccines. Greater calculation of disease and vaccination risk, and preference for natural immunity, also predicted not getting the influenza vaccine. For both the pneumococcal and shingles vaccines, concerns about profiteering further predicted lack of uptake. Analysis of the qualitative responses highlighted that participants vaccinated to protect their own health and that of others. Our findings suggest that interventions targeted towards older adults would benefit from being vaccine-specific and that they should emphasise disease risks and vaccine benefits for the individual, as well as the benefits of vaccination for the wider community. These findings can help inform intervention development aimed at increasing vaccination uptake in future.     

Determination of factors required to increase uptake of influenza vaccination among hospital-based healthcare workers

A questionnaire study was performed in all eight University Medical Centers in The Netherlands to determine the predictors of influenza vaccination compliance in hospital-based healthcare workers (HCWs). Demographical, behavioural and organisational determinants were assessed based on behavioural and implementation models. Multivariable regression analysis was applied to assess the independent predictors for influenza vaccine uptake. Age >40 years, the presence of a chronic illness, awareness of personal risk and awareness of risk of infecting patients, trust in the effectiveness of the vaccine to reduce the risk of infecting patients, the HCWs' duty to do no harm and their duty to ensure continuity of care, finding vaccination useful despite the constant flow of visitors and having knowledge of the Health Council's advice, social influence and convenient time for vaccination were all independently associated with vaccine uptake. The accuracy of the prediction model was very high (area under the receiver operating curve: 0.95). Intervention programmes to increase influenza vaccine uptake among HCWs should target the relevant determinants identified in this study.     

Real-world uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among individuals expressing vaccine hesitancy: A registry-linkage study

Introduction Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Our objective was to describe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry.Methods A cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention.ResultsAmong 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32–0.76) and 0.21 (0.12–0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02–5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01–2.36]). Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80–85%) overall, and 98% (97–99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86–89%).ConclusionWillingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake.     

Voluntary reporting of employee influenza vaccination rates by acute care hospitals in Iowa: the impact of a four year provider-based statewide performance improvement project

Objective

In 2006 a voluntary, provider-based project was initiated to improve influenza vaccination rates among healthcare workers (HCWs) employed by acute care hospitals in Iowa. The statewide vaccination target was 95% by 2010. Data from the first four influenza seasons (2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010) are presented.

Methods

A website was used to submit and circulate hospital-specific influenza vaccination rates. Rates were fed back to participating hospitals from the outset and hospital-specific rates made publicly available for the last two influenza seasons.

Results

Hospital participation rates ranged from 86% in season 1 to 100% in the subsequent three seasons. Statewide median hospital employee vaccination rates trended upward from 73% in season 1 to 93% in season 4. By season 4, 35% of participating hospitals had reached or exceeded a 95% vaccination rate. In season 4 the mean employee vaccination rate of 19 hospitals reporting use of a mandatory vaccination policy was 96% vs. 87% in the 64 hospitals not using such policies.

Conclusion

Over a 4 year period, while participating in a provider-based, voluntary project, acute care hospitals in Iowa reported significantly improved seasonal influenza vaccination rates among their employees.     

Effects of a multi-faceted program to increase influenza vaccine uptake among health care workers in nursing homes: A cluster randomised controlled trial

Despite the recommendation of the Dutch association of nursing home physicians (NVVA) to be immunized against influenza, vaccine uptake among HCWs in nursing homes remains unacceptably low. Therefore we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial among 33 Dutch nursing homes to assess the effects of a systematically developed multi-faceted intervention program on influenza vaccine uptake among HCWs. The intervention program resulted in a significantly higher, though moderate, influenza vaccine uptake among HCWs in nursing homes. To take full advantage of this measure, either the program should be adjusted and implemented over a longer time period or mandatory influenza vaccination should be considered.     

Prevalence and characteristics of HPV vaccine hesitancy among parents of adolescents across the US

BackgroundWhile many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination.MethodsIn April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11–17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal.Results2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent’s health-care provider’s recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal.ConclusionsHPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal.